Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Type 45 Destroyer

Mr. Edward Leigh: When the type 45 destroyer will enter service. [100954]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): On current plans, the type 45 destroyer is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy in 2007.

Mr. Leigh: In 2007. Given the massive cuts in the defence budget, can the Minister guarantee even that derisory date?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The massive cuts came under the previous Government not this one, and they were cuts by stealth rather than by the comprehensive review that the strategic defence review represented. As the hon. Gentleman well

knows, the type 45 will come on stream in 2007 and it will be managed in such a way that there will be no depletion of operational capability whatsoever.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If these vessels are to come into operation and are to join the fleet in 2007, the orders for their construction will have to be signed soon. Dare I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that many of my constituents and other people who work along the Clyde want those orders to be signed and want a fair share of the work to come to the Clyde shipyards?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The orders for construction will be made in the new year. We are conscious that the shipbuilding industry in certain parts of the country relies heavily upon its capability for building military vessels. The Clyde will get more than its share of those contracts on the basis of its capacity to compete effectively with other yards around the country.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Minister agree with the many people who are worried that the type 45 will carry the French SYLVER missile launcher, which will launch only one type of missile? Would it not be better to equip the ship with a multiple system that could fire Tomahawks and other missiles? That would turn this anti-aircraft destroyer into a truly multi-role combat vessel.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I think that the intention to purchase the principal anti-air missile system, as it develops, is very judicious. That will meet the operational demands that have been set out. I am absolutely confident that it will meet the needs of the Royal Navy, using the type 45 as its platform.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: After all the delays to the project that took place under the previous Government, may I welcome the fact that it is now back on track? Does that not demonstrate the great benefits that there will be from smart procurement? What is my


hon. Friend doing to ensure that smart procurement is being driven through at all levels in the Ministry of Defence, so that it is fully realised as early as possible?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that this development comes from the previous Government's failure to ensure that the Horizon programme was properly conceptualised. We have ensured that the same deadline dates and the same operational capacities will be met. Our adherence to the principles of smart procurement will ensure that, in future, such purchases will be cheaper, will be delivered faster and will be far more efficient.

Mr. Robert Key: The type 45 destroyer was announced in 1992 with an in-service date of 2002. Yes, that date slipped two years under the Conservative Government, but it has slipped three years in two years under this Government. That is just part of the problem. There is a lot of big talk about two aircraft carriers, but there is nothing said about the ships that will defend them or about the replacement for the type 23. We know that they are short of money to the tune of about £1 billion a year and that there is no hope of the £2 billion saving from smart procurement. When, for the sake of an industry that both sides of the House are interested in preserving, will we receive some straight answers? The compendium of staff requirements and targets was due for publication in September, but that date slipped into the spring. We have not had the strategic defence review figures on budget forecasts or a comprehensive spending review of more than a few lines. Will the Minister guarantee that we shall have before Christmas the first White Paper on defence spending since 1996 and will he guarantee that we shall debate it when the House returns in January?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman overstates the case—to put it mildly—on the success or otherwise of the Horizon project. He makes rather spurious claims about slippage, but I assure him that the present Government took a very brave decision when they decided to review the plans for the type 45. We found out what the real slippage was and understood plainly what the previous Government failed to understand. We understood that we needed to ensure that we have the industrial capacity to meet such a complex order and to ensure that it takes place within a framework of affordability. The previous Government failed to do either.

European Defence Initiatives

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding spending on common defence initiatives. [100955]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): At the Helsinki European Council, European Union member states committed themselves to strengthening their military capabilities and to developing the means for the EU to act in support of its foreign and security policy objectives, strengthening the European NATO pillar and allowing the EU to undertake operations where NATO is not engaged.

Mrs. Spelman: President Chirac has said of the European Union that it
"could not fully exist until it possessed autonomous capacity for action in the area of defence."
That view is shared by Mr. Prodi. Is not that the clearest indication of an inevitable direction in defence policy towards a Euro army?

Mr. Hoon: No, it is not, and if the hon. Lady read carefully the conclusions of the Helsinki summit, she would find that there is a specific undertaking not to create a European army. What Helsinki does is good for Europe and good for NATO. By strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are providing a greater capability for Europe to strengthen NATO's operations and, in particular, to allow the European Union, as I said few moments ago, to become engaged in operations where NATO is not involved.

Mr. Barry Jones: When does my right hon. Friend think that he will be able to make a decision on common spending and procurement, which affects not only Britain but Germany, France and Spain, on the heavy lift project? May I urge on him the solution of the A400M, which British Aerospace would participate in and which would be of huge benefit to my constituents in Broughton? I remind my right hon. Friend that, in a previous Administration, a Secretary of State for Defence said that he recognised the need for some 40 to 50 heavy lift aircraft—what we could call the A400M. It is insufficient to have only 25 to 30 such aircraft.

Mr. Hoon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity in asking such an erudite and thoughtful question, which I am sure is of passing interest to his constituents. I can assure him that the Government are considering carefully that procurement issue. That careful consideration will continue for some time yet, but I am confident that the decision will be made not too far into the new year.

Mr. kin Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State answered my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) by talking about the EU defence capability. Is not the reality, however, that, after Amsterdam, the Prime Minister referred in the House to the plans—which he said that he had blocked—to move the Western European Union into the European Union and give the EU a defence capability as
"an ill-judged transplant operation"?
Is not it a fact, therefore, that in the past 12 months the Prime Minister and the Government have reversed what had been British defence policy for 40 years, and what the Prime Minister said was an ill-judged transplant operation has now become British defence policy?

Mr. Hoon: The UK played a leading role in shaping crucial European Union policy that strengthens the EU's ability to operate and to support its common foreign and security policy while, as I said earlier, strengthening NATO. On the subject of changes of emphasis, what is revealing is the Conservative party's obsessively anti-European tone. A once formidable political party has now assumed the status of a pressure group.
It is perhaps still more revealing that the Conservatives now rely on Baroness Thatcher to lead the charge, with the shadow Defence Secretary following closely behind. The hon. Gentleman refers to Baroness Thatcher as small children refer to a security blanket. He should consider carefully the cautionary tale that says,
"keep a hold of Nurse, For fear of finding something worse."

Mr. Duncan Smith: As ever, the Secretary of State talks rubbish. The truth is that the Prime Minister has not introduced a change of emphasis; he has turned British defence policy round by 180 deg. The Secretary of State glibly refers to that policy change as a change of emphasis, but that is not what they believe over in Europe.
Mr. Prodi knows exactly what is going on when he talks about the inevitability of a Euro army. The French are absolutely clear when they say that the policy is a breathtaking reversal of British policy. The Italians are clear when they say, after conversations with the British Government, that the Euro army will number 120,000. Above all, in the past four days the Russians have welcomed the Euro army. Why? They say that it will decouple the United States from Europe and render European defenceless and less capable. Will that not be the Government's epitaph?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has been trying hard to decouple the United States from the United Kingdom and Europe. Indeed, he has gone to the US deliberately to scaremonger on that particular subject. He cannot get round the fact that Strobe Talbott said at Chatham House,
"the US is for ESDI".
The US supports that policy. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Financial Times today, he will see that there is further United States support for a stronger European pillar.
It really is deeply depressing for the remaining few pro-Europeans on the Conservative Benches to find that, unlike when the party was led by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it is apparently ever more dependent on Margaret Thatcher. We were told that, under the right hon. Gentleman, she was a back-seat driver. Now, she is sitting firmly in the front seat, driving the party's policy.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again—this is the third time—the Secretary of State will not answer the real questions. There will be no extra spending by any European Government on the proposal. The capability will be no greater; it is more likely to be less. As we saw in the Sunday papers, east Europeans who recently joined NATO are scared stiff because they are excluded from the process and the United States is worried to the extent that it carries out an inquiry. What the Prime Minister does not say publicly is that he has agreed to Mr. Solana becoming the Defence Minister for Europe. Will not the Government's policy leave us with a common European army policy, which is the same as the common agricultural policy—a disaster?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman should know that questions of defence spending are a matter for national Governments, and that the matter to which he referred is one for our European partners. He would equally know, if he had read the Helsinki summit conclusions carefully, that a specific commitment on capability was agreed,

and that each country signed up to it. That means that each country must make available such forces and assets to deliver up to a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force into a theatre of operations quickly. That is clear and practical and, I am proud to say, something which the British Government led the way in negotiating and framing.

Fiona Mactaggart: If the European defence initiative represents such a threat to NATO, will the Secretary of State explain why all 19 NATO countries, including the United States, signed a declaration of support for it at the Washington summit?

Mr. Hoon: I have puzzled for some time over why Conservative Members cannot understand the plain statements of representatives of the American Administration and senior figures in Washington. They have made it clear, as did William Cohen, the United States Defense Secretary, at a recent NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, that the improvement of European capability "will strengthen NATO", and that there is no ground whatever for any speculation of a possible division between Europe and the United States. If Conservative Members were able to be less obsessively anti-European and looked at the facts a little more clearly, they would come to the clear conclusion reached by our friends in Washington.

Leisure and Recreation Facilities

Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received regarding the use of his Department's leisure and recreation facilities by civilian members of the public; and if he will make a statement. [100956]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We welcome public use of the Department's leisure and recreational facilities provided that it does not conflict with the Department's operational purposes, safety or security requirements, or the interests of the Department's landlords, tenants or conservation. Where such use is agreed, fees are usually charged and an appropriate insurance policy is put in place. Representations are received frequently from members of the public wishing to use such facilities. Such requests are either agreed or denied based on the above constraints.

Mr. Ruffley: May I draw the Minister's attention to the £4 million new facility at Wattisham MOD base in my constituency, which is a physical and recreational training centre comprising a 25 m swimming pool, physiotherapy and weight-training rooms and a sports hall? Is he aware that some of my constituents have pointed out that, given that taxpayers paid for that excellent new facility, local civilians in the Needham market area should be allowed access to it? As everyone is interested in getting value for taxpayers' money, will he consider implementing arrangements at the Wattisham base to allow local civilians to use those fine facilities?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about Wattisham. He may not know it, but that is one of two pilot schemes, which are evidence of the success of the smart construction initiative. I have been


there and seen the fine work being done. I would be more than happy for the people of Wattisham to be able to access those facilities, subject to the constraints that I mentioned, and subject to the unit commander reaching agreement with local community representatives on the use of those facilities.

Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve

Mr. Simon Hughes: What assessments he has made of the prospective level of recruitment and retention in the TAVR during each of the next three years. [100957]

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the level of recruitment to the Territorial Army. [100958]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): My Department has recently completed an assessment of anticipated recruitment and retention for the reserves as part of the armed forces' forward manpower planning. We are confident that, over the next three years, the reserve forces will be able to both recruit and retain sufficient numbers of volunteers to fulfil and sustain the roles set out for them in the strategic defence review.

Mr. Hughes: That is an encouraging answer. However, I gather that only three out of five reservists are available to go into service, having finished their training, and that in the field hospital just over the river in my constituency in Walworth, for example, only about half have signed up for humanitarian aid or multinational work because of the financial implications of that. Will the Minister re-examine the terms and conditions that can be offered to doctors, nurses and the like, who want to be available as reserves to do humanitarian work with our services, but at present cannot do that without prejudice to their jobs or their careers?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. I am pleased to say that we have had constructive discussions with the NHS regarding the availability of those who work in the NHS and who are also members of the reserve forces. It would be fair to say that there were difficulties in the past, but those have decreased and we are getting far fewer complaints in that regard. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific concerns with us, I should be more than happy to look into them, recognising that there has been a great improvement in relations, to the benefit of both the NHS and the defence medical services.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that, for the first time since the second world war, whole units of the Territorial Army are being called up for a peace-keeping role in Kosovo and Bosnia? Will he also confirm that the cuts in the Territorial Army, which his Government have imposed, will represent savings of less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget in any one year? Finally, will he recognise the effect on towns such as Guildford of cutting the historic tie between the TA and our town, and the effect that that will have on future recruitment not just in the Territorial Army, but in the main Army?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. He spoke about calling up units. That was part of the legislation agreed by both parties under the previous Administration for reserve forces.

Mr. St. Aubyn: But not for cuts.

Mr. Spellar: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's second question. He insists on asking three questions in one, but I shall answer serially. The restructuring under the strategic defence review was to reshape our reserve forces to meet the needs of the post-cold war era, rather than the pre-cold war era, and therefore to focus less on home protection and reinforcement of infantry, and far more on the specialist roles of the various reserve services. We have been doing that successfully, to ensure that our reserve forces are both usable and used.

Departmental Land

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What progress has been made since 1 May 1997 in disposing of land and housing held surplus to requirements. [100959]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): My Department has made good progress in disposing of surplus land since 1 May 1997. During the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, disposal receipts from such sales totalled some £302 million.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Two of the three barracks in which I did my national service in the Royal Marines—Eastney and Deal—are now closed. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's record of selling such assets and using the proceeds to regenerate local communities is far better than that of the previous Government?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend, but whether the Opposition would accept that is a different matter. Following the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence review, we have set in train a process whereby, over a four-year period, we will raise more than £700 million in capital receipts from surplus assets. Moreover, we have a large number of brownfield sites dotted about the country and we fully intend to bring as many of those as possible back into practical use, rather than leaving them to rot away and waste, as was the case under the previous Government. The brownfield land alone would be enough to build 26,000 new homes.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Given that those figures are below the trend line required to meet the £700 million requirement; given that the first part of the figures would have included receipts generated from the defence cost studies process; given the time it takes to get property receipts into the budget; given that the Department is struggling hugely to meet its £2 billion a year efficiency savings programme, and, as we have just heard, that we have given a commitment to strengthen our military capability which is bleeding away as experience bleeds out of the armed forces and as the retention figures deteriorate, will the Department go back to the Treasury


to insist that the defence budget is not required to meet any undershoot if it fails to meet the property savings targets?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I hate to disillusion the hon. Gentleman, but the reality is that we shall meet our targets. We are ahead of the targets and doing extremely well with property sales. Some large sales are looming, which I think will take us beyond the figures that we have anticipated. I am confident that we shall meet all the ambitions that we have set out in the strategic defence review.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Through the success of my hon. Friend in the sale of housing and land that are no longer needed, will he ensure that overseas housing is brought up to a habitable standard and then ensure that our armed forces are treated as well overseas as in the United Kingdom, which will help with retention?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are well aware of the problems for retention if we do not have a reasonable standard of accommodation both for single personnel and for those occupying married quarters. We are in discussions to ensure that we have a consistent standard of habitable accommodation for those serving at home and those serving abroad.

Iraq

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the southern and northern no-fly zones in Iraq. [100960]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The no-fly zones have served a vital humanitarian purpose for the past eight years in helping to limit Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of his own people. I very much regret Saddam's efforts to shoot down coalition aircraft carrying out these legitimate patrols. Let me make it clear. If Saddam stops trying to kill our aircrew, we will stop attacking the systems he uses to threaten them.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he explain what further action he can take to stop Iraq's campaign of repression in the south, where I understand that villages are still being destroyed? I understand also that villagers are expelled at gunpoint and that water supplies are cut off. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain also whether he expects the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission to be more or less successful than the UN Special Commission in its monitoring role? Will he outline what the composition of that organisation is likely to be?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will know that the United Kingdom has been heavily engaged in trying to promote a new resolution in the Security Council. We are in the end game of that process. I anticipate that there will be further discussions on that issue today in the UN in New York. As for the outcome, we are confident that the resolution that we have helped to draft will provide a sensible basis for dealing with Iraq and will provide an opportunity and a road towards lifting the sanctions while securing the interests of those countries in the region, which remain extremely concerned about the ability of

Saddam Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction. It is important that we find a new basis for dealing with Iraq. Until that happens, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that we shall continue to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to maintain the no-fly zones, and to preserve the situation in the north and the south as our response to an overwhelming humanitarian necessity, where Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime are seeking to destroy the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I want to express my appreciation for the air and ground crews who operate missions over north and south Iraq. They endure considerable periods of separation from their families, especially over Christmas, on operations that are not without risk to the aircrews who fly them. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient Tornado offensive support airframes are available, especially while the mid-life update of the aircraft is taking place, to permit Tornado operations elsewhere if the need arises?

Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I shall ensure that they are communicated to our forces in that region, who operate in extremely dangerous circumstances, putting their lives at risk to protect people on the ground. They will appreciate his sentiments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be sufficient airframes to do that valuable and important job.
As I said earlier, we want to maintain the pressure on Saddam while ensuring that we do our best to protect those on the ground whose lives have been threatened in the past, and who continue to be threatened by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the Government on the United Nations resolution, which combines humanitarian relief with a strategy to deal with Saddam's continuing capability to use weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility that he is developing a nuclear capability while continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons. Will my right hon. Friend remind people again of the latest report of Mr. van der Stoel, the UN Rapporteur on human rights, who makes it clear that repression, torture and inhumane treatment, as well as ethnic cleansing, continue in Iraq?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with her comments. We hope that we can persuade all members of the Security Council to agree to the resolution. The matter remains under discussion, but we are working as hard as we can on what, I believe, is an excellent statement of the international community's position.
I also agree with my hon. Friend about the latest evidence to emerge from Iraq. Some people claim that the international community is responsible for the plight of the Iraqi people, but there is a clear difference between the availability of medical and food supplies in the north of Iraq, which is not controlled by Saddam's regime, and that in rest of the country. That nails the lie that the


international community is responsible for the Iraqi people's plight. The responsibility lies with Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The majority in the House support the Government's action. However, will the Secretary of State listen to the advice that we received last week from the equivalent of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Assemblée Nationale in Paris? I shall quote from it—I ask hon. Members to excuse my translation. It states:
The loss of sovereignty of Iraq, especially in the North of …the country, is not admissible.
It goes on to call for all sanctions to be lifted.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the peoples and Parliaments of the European Union perceive the interests of those European nations differently? That is why France takes a different line from Britain in the Security Council. Does he accept that undermining NATO with a Euro army will also undermine our national interest?

Mr. Hoon: I congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on his ingenuity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not extend the same courtesy to him. The answer to his point is simple: there is a range of views in western European democracies, and it would be unfortunate if they were not expressed. That is different from the position in Iraq, where there is no possibility of expressing such a range of views. It is inevitable that tensions will arise when the country is led by a man such as Saddam Hussein. Those tensions will continue unless and until there is a democratic Government in Iraq.

Aircraft Rewiring

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: What steps his Department has taken to check the wiring of military aircraft following recent crashes; and how many military aircraft have been rewired as a result. [100961]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As a result of damaged, mishandled or misrouted wires, instances of electrical fires caused two Harrier aircraft accidents in 1991. As a result of those accidents, remedial action was taken and there is no evidence that any recent crashes were caused by problems with electrical wiring. The safety of electrical wiring in UK military aircraft is reviewed continuously. Wiring is inspected whenever maintenance activity takes place on an aircraft. We work closely with the British Standards Institution to ensure that aircraft wiring meets the highest standards of safety and installation.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That all sounds very comforting, and I am happy to hear it, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the length of life of some of the aircraft in the list that he was kind enough to give me is way beyond what was originally envisaged for them by the builders. There is a real worry that wiring faults, in military and civil aircraft, may be a contributory cause of major crashes and it is difficult to inspect all the systems when looking at the wiring of an aircraft during maintenance. Will my hon. Friend please give me a guarantee that—despite his

confidence in the efficiency of aircraft—he will look carefully in the immediate future at the type of wiring used and at any dangers that may arise from that?

Mr. Spellar: It is not unusual for military aircraft—so long as there is sufficient assurance about their safety—to run over the life that was originally predicted by either the purchasers or the manufacturers. A number of aircraft are updated with newer equipment, but the basic frame may stay the same. When we undertake routine wiring maintenance, wiring is often replaced and newer materials introduced, but there is also stringent and rigorous inspection and attention is paid to possible mechanical treatment of wiring. Often, the combination of the chemical qualities of the insulation and the mechanical treatment causes arcing and fires. As I said in my original answer, we have not had any evidence of that problem since 1991, but our engineering departments are alert to keeping a look out for it.

Mr. John Bercow: What study has the Minister made himself of Kapton wiring and what conclusion has he reached?

Mr. Spellar: I am Spellar, PPE Oxford not MSc Eng.Chem. The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why we have such extremely fine service engineers, on both the fitting and the technical and engineering side, who give us excellent advice. That is borne out by the fact that no fires have caused crashes since 1991, and I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should cast such a slur on the excellent technical personnel in the Royal Air Force.

European Defence Co-operation

Dr. Julian Lewis: What representations he has received from his French counterparts regarding European defence co-operation. [100962]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): At St. Malo in December 1998, the United Kingdom and France launched a major initiative aimed at building European security and defence. Since then, we have continued to work closely with our French defence counterparts, culminating in the joint declaration made at our London summit on 25 November. That declaration called on European nations to strengthen their military capabilities and was an important stepping stone towards the Helsinki European Council.

Dr. Lewis: Despite their many other virtues, have not our French allies for more than 40 years weakened the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by staying outside its integrated military structure? Has not their main reason for that been pride, and resentment of America's role in defending Europe? By playing dangerous games with the formation of a Euro-army, are not the Labour Government undermining the prospects for our future conventional defence, just as they tried to undermine our prospects for successful nuclear deterrence in the 1980s?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library, he will be able to find a copy of the Helsinki summit conclusions, which state that it has been agreed by the United Kingdom and the French Government, as well as


every other Government of the European Union, that the initiative is not leading to the creation of a European army.
As for defence co-operation with the French, the hon. Gentleman should consider these words:
The relationship between British and French forces at operational level is fantastic. It should be developed. We are the two most serious countries about defence in Europe. … We need to do things together."—[Official Report, 10 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 812.]
Those are excellent words. They are not my words, but the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary after St. Malo. Yet as soon as we try to do something together—remember: the shadow Foreign Secretary said that we need to do things together—the shadow Defence Secretary accuses us of trying to create a single European army and a vast European super-state. What is clearly required on the Conservative Benches is a little joined-up opposition.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend is confident that the common defence policy will not affect our relationship with the United States, but does he agree that the forces of isolationism are always just below the surface in the United States, and is he not concerned that these initiatives might give succour to people in the United States who want to tear up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, with all the consequences of that?

Mr. Hoon: Clearly, there are concerns in the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] In a vigorous democracy it is inevitable that some people will take a particular view of a particular problem. However, there are no difficulties with the Administration and majority opinion on the Hill: they recognise that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are strengthening NATO as a whole.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Can the increased defence capability as proposed at the Helsinki Council be provided by the United Kingdom and France alone, or is it a non-runner unless there is greater public expenditure on defence by other European Union countries?

Mr. Hoon: As I said earlier, precise expenditure by other European Union countries is a matter for them. By agreeing to a capability assessment and to deploying specific forces to meet that assessment, European nations are saying that we will spend what is necessary to reach that conclusion. By specifying what forces and equipment are needed to reach that rapid reaction capability, we are specifying precisely what we need to do as European nations. We are improving the European pillar of NATO in a practical way. Those countries will have to decide how they should spend the money to achieve those ends. Having agreed the ends, we have achieved a practical conclusion that strengthens Europe inside NATO.

Ms Dari Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain and France enjoy a close relationship on nuclear matters? My memory tells me that. Would he also confirm my recollection that the policy was put together by the Conservative party, which now doubts anything and everything French?

Mr. Hoon: I can recall an occasion in the 1980s on which the Government under Lady Thatcher were keen on closer Anglo-French co-operation—indeed, her major

foreign policy adviser wrote about that recently. Perhaps Conservative Members should consider a little more carefully the history of these matters, especially the conclusion of the Berlin summit and the text of the Maastricht treaty, which show that they were in favour of European defence co-operation in the relatively recent past. They have now abandoned that view because of the obsessive anti-Europeanism that now infects the entire Conservative party.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with those who say that membership of the euro—the single currency—is essential to the success of a European defence force?

Mr. Hoon: No.

Kosovo

Mr. Harry Cohen: What discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about that country's use of cluster bombs in Kosovo; what representations his Department has received on the use of cluster bombs; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the future role of cluster bombs. [100963]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have had no discussions with the United States Defence Secretary on this subject.
The Ministry of Defence has received a number of inquiries from members of the public, as well as from hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the use of cluster bombs during the campaign over Kosovo. Within our international obligations, the United Kingdom's armed forces retain the right to use the most effective weapons systems available. Consequently, should there be a proven need to use cluster bombs in the future, we would do so. Denying ourselves the most appropriate weapons would not help to end conflicts quickly; it could also put our armed forces at greater risk of harm.

Mr. Cohen: Is the Secretary of State aware that cluster bombs used during the Kosovo conflict were dropped from a height of 15,000 ft, although they had been designed to be dropped from a much lower level? Did that not increase the number of bomblets that did not explode on hitting the ground, jeopardising the local population and, in effect, becoming land mines? Many hon. Members, including me, felt that military action over Kosovo was justified, but surely the use of cluster bombs in that way has put the allied forces on very shaky moral ground internationally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the use of such weapons in all future conflicts, and discuss it with all our NATO allies—including the United States—so that cluster bombs are not used in the same way again?

Mr. Hoon: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but, in a previous ministerial capacity, I examined the Ottawa convention very carefully, and there is no doubt that, as a matter of international law, a cluster bomb cannot be defined as a land mine in either the spirit or the letter of the convention. Given that there is no international pressure for the expansion of the convention to cover


cluster bombs, or to change the definition of a land mine to include them, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument.
Let me emphasise that KFOR and, significantly, British forces have been extensively engaged in clearing some 7,400 unexploded cluster-bomb munitions, as well as more than 6,100 Serbian anti-personnel mines and more than 3,400 Serbian anti-tank mines. British forces and KFOR are working hard to ensure that Kosovo is safe for its citizens.

Mr. Martin Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the realities on the ground? The failure rate of cluster bombs is some 5 to 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of finding effective weapons systems; this weapons system is clearly failing, and is endangering the lives of those whom it was designed to protect. Surely, in such circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman can start thinking along the lines of an ethical defence policy.

Mr. Hoon: In fact, the failure rate is around 5 per cent.
As I said in my answer to the original question, we must ensure that we use effective munitions, not only to shorten conflicts but, crucially, to prevent our forces that are engaged in international humanitarian peacekeeping acts from being put at greater risk than they would be otherwise. That is why we must use the most effective weapons available to us, within our international obligations.

Centre for Defence Medicine

Mr. Jim Cousins: When he plans to announce a decision on the future location of the Centre for Defence Medicine. [100964]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am delighted to announce that, after careful consideration, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust has been selected as the host for the new centre for defence medicine. The three competing bids received from NHS trusts were all of a very high quality, but after rigorous evaluation, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust was found to meet our requirements most effectively.
The establishment of the Centre for Defence Medicine is an important landmark in our new strategy for the defence medical services. The centre will provide a very important professional focus for military medicine, and a prestigious place of work. The formal agreement with the trust is expected to be in place by 1 April, and the centre is expected to open by April 2001.

Mr. Cousins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one in eight of the armed forces are recruited in the north-east of England, while only one in 100 jobs are located there? One of the three sites under consideration—an excellent site—was in the centre of the city of Newcastle. Does my hon. Friend realise that his announcement will be greeted with a good deal of dismay, disappointment and, indeed, anger in that area?

Mr. Spellar: I recognise that Newcastle, as well as Guy's and St. Thomas's, will be disappointed not to have been selected as the preferred host. I reiterate that all three

bids were of extremely high quality, but we had to choose one, and the bid from the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust was clearly the best and met the criteria. I fully understand what my hon. Friend has said. I understand the disappointment, but it was the best of three good bids.

Mr. Peter Viggers: It is over a year since the Government announced the foundation of a centre of medical excellence, during which time a number of the prime candidates have dropped out, leaving only three. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the level of dismay that will be felt within defence medical services that the Government are pressing ahead with the plan? Is he aware that, if they were to proceed, the effect would be to transfer doctors and nurses from an area of medical deprivation—South Hampshire—to one which I understand has sufficiency? I use the word "would" rather than "will" because I forecast that doctors and nurses who have chosen in the past five years to move their homes and families to South Hampshire to be near the only tri-service hospital at Haslar will not move to Birmingham. The result will be that the Government's inept and disastrous policy will not succeed.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has had a long and consistent record of representing his constituency on this issue. As he knows, I met him and his constituents at Haslar. The message that I got from people in the defence medical services was quite the reverse: they were asking for an early decision on the centre for defence medicine. They see that as an attraction and a key part of a future successful defence medical services. That is separate from the issue of the role of Haslar and the transfer to Queen Alexandra hospital, Portsmouth. They see the centre as an integral part of the defence medical services and a major attraction to young people wishing to be involved. All the messages that I get, not just from the chain of command, but from people on the ground, is that they are looking forward to the centre in Birmingham. They think that it is an exciting venture and prospect. When they become involved with the centre, they will find that that is what they joined up for, and what they will join up for.

Mr. Syd Rapson: Now that a decision has finally been made, may I have an assurance that there will be no reduction in Ministers' efforts to solve the problem for the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and my own?

Mr. Spellar: I say to my hon. Friend and to all Members who represent the South Hampshire area that we are working extremely hard to effect a smooth and satisfactory transition. That is moving ahead. I accept that it is not an easy period for them, but we have exceedingly good relations now with the health authority, the health trust, the secondary care agency and representatives of the local council, whom I met in Gosport.

Eurofighter

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding expenditure on the Eurofighter. [100966]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I meet regularly with my European counterparts for discussions on a wide range of defence issues, including Eurofighter. Recent discussions have focused on the excellence of the aircraft and its importance for European defence industry, rather than on expenditure.

Miss McIntosh: I wonder whether the Secretary of State could put my mind at rest on whether our European partners are paying their fair share of Eurofighter. Is he minded to indicate where the Eurofighter might be located? What steps will he take to inform residents who live near the respective RAF stations of what the implications will be for them?

Mr. Hoon: Eurofighter is a superb aircraft. It is the product of European co-operation. It is well on course to enter service as the RAF's front-line fighter for the new millennium. I am delighted to be able to announce that Coningsby in Lincolnshire, Leeming in North Yorkshire and Leuchars in Fife, with their proud history of RAF service dating back to the beginning of the second world war, have been chosen as Eurofighter's operational bases. I am sure that that announcement, which I hope will be communicated to all those with constituency interests in due course, will be welcomed by all the people associated with those bases, whether they are in the RAF, or part of the local communities.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State's announcement will be welcomed throughout the Royal Air Force. It is particularly welcome to those of us who have supported Eurofighter—or Typhoon as we must learn to call it—in the House of Commons, not least when we remember that one of the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative predecessors practically undermined the whole programme by trying to lease F16s from the United States. Will he tell us in a little more detail the programme for withdrawal of the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar aircraft? When does he anticipate the last of the 232 Eurofighters will be deployed?

Mr. Hoon: As I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—I thank him for his good wishes—we expect the first Eurofighter to be delivered to the RAF in mid-2002. There will then be a consistent and steady deployment programme, allocating Eurofighters, as they are constructed, to the different air forces that have ordered them. Therefore—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me—I shall not be too specific about the final in-service and replacement dates. Clearly, however, the Eurofighter is a huge success for European co-operation, and I hope that that lesson will not be lost on Conservative Members.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the Eurofighter is a European aircraft and ought to be armed with European weapons? In making a decision on the beyond visual range air-to-air missile, will he bear in mind that if we were to buy American for BVRAAM, there is a danger that the United States could veto sale of the Eurofighter to third countries?

Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly take those matters into account, and all those factors are being considered as part

of the very careful evaluation of the various bids for the beyond visual range air-to-air missile. We are considering the matter very carefully.

RAF (Heavy Lift Requirement)

Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the RAF's heavy lift requirement. [100968]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The strategic defence review concluded that we needed to improve our strategic transport to deploy joint rapid reaction forces more quickly to meet operational requirements in the changed strategic environment. The SDR further considered a wide range of options for enhancing our strategic airlift capability. It concluded that, in the short term, we should meet our strategic airlift needs with C17 aircraft or their equivalent, and that, in the longer term, we should consider a suitable replacement for our remaining transport aircraft.
We are currently considering solutions in respect of both our short and long-term requirements, and expect to make an announcement in the House in the new year.

Mr. Gray: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham in my constituency, whose current fleet of C130K Hercules flew 497 sorties in operation Agricola—carrying 4,964 passengers, 277 vehicles, and an astonishing 2,483 tonnes of freight? Does he agree that the Kosovo operation would not have been possible without the Hercules? Rather than doing what may be more politically expedient and moving towards the European Airbus A400M replacement, will he therefore commit himself to replacing the current Hercules fleet with the C130J and the C17?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The short answer is no. There are three responses to the longer-term aircraft needs of the transport wing, and we shall evaluate each of those, just as we shall do for bids to meet the short-term requirements—according to criteria that have been clearly stated and against which we have practised assiduously since publication of the strategic defence review. We will ensure that there is value for money and that requirements on qualities such as interoperability are satisfied. We will also certainly ensure that we get delivery on time, and that the aircraft meet operational requirements.

Kosovo

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the role of the Territorial Army in supporting the Regular Army in Kosovo. [100969]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The Territorial Army is an integral part of our armed forces, and many members of the TA are currently serving in the Balkans theatre of operations. As of 3 December 1999, 229 members of the TA were serving


in Kosovo. The TA also supports the Regular Army by back-filling jobs of Army personnel deployed in the region.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in saying that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all Territorial Army members who are currently supporting the Regular Army, including the 17 members of the Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers currently deployed on humanitarian work in Bosnia and in Kosovo?

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I have special affection for the Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers, because—as he will know—a part of the unit is in my constituency. My hon. Friend—like others who have been to Kosovo and to Bosnia—will be aware of the tremendous job being done and the enthusiasm and commitment being shown by reserve forces in those places. They are working alongside their fellows in the

Regular Army—doing a job that is well done, and a job which—contrary to some of the assertions made by Conservative Members—is worth doing.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), which he tried to dodge? Is it not the case that, because of defence cuts, the Territorial Army is having to be deployed compulsorily for the first time since the second world war?

Mr. Spellar: As I said in my previous answer, it is strange for Conservatives to make that point, because it was the Conservative Government, with all-party support, who brought in the provisions for compulsory call-out under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to make the TA and the reserve forces usable and used. I fail to understand why they have such a low opinion of the reserve forces that they do not think that we should be using them. They want to be used and we want to use them.

Helsinki European Council

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Accompanied by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I attended a meeting of the European Council in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December.
The key decisions of the Helsinki summit were far reaching. It increased to 12 the number of countries involved in accession negotiations with the European Union and gave candidate status to Turkey for the first time. That presages a hugely enlarged European Union and, over time, with the membership of Turkey now formally on the agenda, one with its borders stretching as far as the middle east. In addition, it has significantly pushed forward European defence co-operation, allowing the European Union for the first time to build the capability of acting where NATO is not engaged. Those are truly historic decisions for the European Union.
Before the start of the summit, we learned of the decision of the French Government to refuse to abide by the decision of the European Union and lift the ban on British beef. As I said in this House on 10 November, it was always preferable to settle this through discussion and clarification, but, failing that, we would have to go to law. We worked hard to reach an understanding with France. In the end, the Commission tabled a summary of our response to French questions, which we and the Commission believed should have satisfied reasonable concerns. Unfortunately, the French Government were unable to agree. The Commission is now taking France to court and will issue its formal legal opinion tomorrow.
There were some who said that we should have tabled the issue at the Helsinki summit. I can think of nothing more counter-productive or misjudged. At present, British beef can be sold in 13 of the 15 European Union countries. The Commission is completely on side with us. The beef ban is in law lifted. To have reopened the entire issue—and given all 15 countries an obligation to debate an issue that the vast majority regard as closed—would have been tactical ineptitude on a grand scale. Neither do I think that it is sensible to threaten a trade war with France. We have trade with France worth billions of pounds and thousands of jobs. To break the law ourselves, while seeking to have it upheld against France, would be folly and we will not do it.
To return to the summit, the main issue was the enlargement of the European Union, which the Government strongly support. Democracy and the market economy are now firmly established in the majority of central and eastern European countries, which are increasingly ready to join the European Union. We also owe an obligation to those countries that stood by us in the Kosovo conflict earlier this year.
Six countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus—began negotiations last year. The European Council decided to open negotiations early next year with six more—Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Malta, Bulgaria and Romania. The process is lengthy and detailed, but it is now firmly under way.
On Cyprus, the European Council welcomed the negotiations under way in New York between the Cypriot leaders. Successful conclusion of those talks would not

only bring a welcome end to a long-running dispute, but facilitate Cyprus's accession to the EU, and we urge all those involved to make every effort to reach agreement. But at Helsinki, Heads of Government endorsed our view that Cyprus's accession was a matter for decision by the member states of the European Union and there should be no preconditions.
The European Council also opened a new and much more positive chapter in its relations with Turkey. This has long been a preoccupation for Britain. Turkey is of great strategic importance and an ally in NATO. A more constructive relationship between Turkey and the EU is long overdue, but we now have secured that. Turkey is now a candidate country, destined to join the European Union on the same basis as the other candidates. It will enjoy all the benefits of other candidates, including financial assistance, even though accession negotiations are unlikely to begin for some time. However, it is an excellent outcome.
The intergovernmental conference next year is aimed at preparing the Union for the impending enlargement. The Helsinki Council confirmed that the conference should focus on the size and composition of the European Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting, in certain limited areas. The conference will begin in February and complete its work by the end of next year.
On security and defence, the European Council endorsed our view that the top priority is for European nations to strengthen their military capabilities. At Helsinki, we agreed that member states should, by 2003, be able to deploy and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000 troops, capable of a range of tasks essentially defined as humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping or peace enforcement.
There have been suggestions that this agreement to increase the options open to us in future crises has adverse implications for NATO, or that the European Union is creating a European army. That is the opposite of the case. The European Council made it clear that the EU will launch and conduct military operations only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. The process will involve full consultation and transparency with NATO. The six non-EU allies will be involved and consulted before decisions are taken, and will be able to take a full part in resulting operations. The EU will avoid unnecessary duplication with NATO. Final decisions on whether to involve troops will remain firmly with national Governments. These arrangements, as the Helsinki Council made clear explicitly, do not imply a European army.
However, it would be a tragic mistake—repeating mistakes of British European policy over the past few decades—if Britain opted out of the debate on European defence and left the field to others. This is a debate that we must shape and influence from the start, because our vital strategic interests are affected by it. As a result of our participation, it is moving in a clear direction—reinforcing NATO, not in opposition to it. I completely reject the view of those who would have us opt out of this issue altogether.
The conflict in Chechnya was much on our minds at Helsinki. Our relationship with Russia is a vital one, above all for the security and stability of our continent. We want Russia to continue on the path of democracy,
the market economy and the rule of law, and will continue to support the transition process. But business as usual is not possible while human rights are being comprehensively abused in a corner of the Russian Federation. The EU called for a political solution to this issue and adopted a series of actions designed to back up the words of strong condemnation.
On the withholding tax, the Council agreed a sensible way forward. We will continue to work for a solution to the issue of tax evasion that rightly concerns some of our EU partners, Germany in particular. But this cannot be done at the expense of a major European financial market based here in London. I have made it clear that we will not permit that. We also have genuine concern about the efficacy of the measures proposed.
We have also insisted that, in debates on the way forward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals for an exchange of information on the basis that involves more than just EU member countries should be examined. There is increasing recognition that it is no good adopting measures in the EU if the only impact is that the market in savings moves outside the EU. The rest of the tax package we can support, although of course other countries have difficulties with parts of it.
The Helsinki summit dealt with pressing issues of the day, but also had a vision for the future. We made the historic decision that the Europe of the future would be one that embraced countries in eastern Europe that 10 short years ago were only just emerging from totalitarian communist rule. This enlarged Europe is one that would have been unimaginable until the very recent past, and it is one that we should embrace.
We also all made the decision that our continent of Europe, which twice this century has lost millions of its citizens in the two most bloody wars in human history, should now co-operate in defence where the object is to help keep the peace. A bigger European Union; a union committed to embracing countries committed to democracy; a Europe of nations determined to use their collective strength to advance our values—that is our vision, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. William Hague: First, I welcome and support what the Prime Minister said about Cyprus and Turkey. I concur with him about the gravity of the situation in Chechnya. The Opposition support the measures agreed at Helsinki, including the diversion of some of the TACIS funding. Russia's actions have been brutal, but it is in everyone's interests that we do not unwittingly destabilise the Russian economy or the progress of democracy in that country.
Overall, however, did not the Helsinki summit represent the complete failure of the Prime Minister's strategy on Europe? Before he came to office, the Prime Minister said:
I will never allow this country to be isolated…in Europe.
Is not it true that he thought that all he had to do was concede and cave in to gain the good will of our European partners? Two and a half years after taking office, is not it apparent that he has got nothing in return for his caving in or his concessions? There is nothing left of his European policy, which has been exposed as one of astonishing naivety.
Is not the greatest example of that the fiasco of the beef ban? When he thought that the ban had been lifted earlier this year, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
Labour leadership in Europe and our constructive approach…has clearly been shown to succeed.
In July, the Prime Minister told the House that the decision to lift the beef ban had come about
"because the Government have a constructive…attitude to Europe. That is why we got the beef ban lifted and it is another example of new Labour working."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 402-5.]
Today he is reduced to stating, rather pathetically:
The beef ban is in law lifted.
Five months and several summits since the Prime Minister's statement to the House in July, is not the fact that British beef is still banned in Europe's two largest countries proof that Labour in Europe is not working? Is not it time that the Prime Minister admitted that he should have lifted our own ban on beef on the bone months ago, as the Opposition demanded, and that he should have begun legal proceedings months ago, as we argued? Should he not have been actively negotiating with the French, which is what we have called for throughout? [Laughter.] The Prime Minister thinks that he has been actively negotiating.
The Government veer between complacently announcing that the ban has been lifted and petulantly refusing to talk to the French when it is not lifted. The Prime Minister may think that he has been actively negotiating, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went through a period when he would not pick up the telephone to speak to his French counterpart. The Anglo-French summit a fortnight ago passed happily by with beef neither on the menu nor on the agenda: where was the Prime Minister's active negotiation then?
The Prime Minister's complacency was finally shattered—and his petulance reached new heights—at Helsinki. A report in The Sun of 10 December stated:
Mr. Blair was so angry he didn't even mention the crisis when he met with Lionel Jospin last night.
The Government are experts in the tactical ineptitude of which the Prime Minister accuses others. We know that he always says that, in fighting the beef ban, we have the law and science on our side. We do—but, unfortunately, we also have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on our side, which is why the beef ban has not been lifted.
Beef provides one example of how Labour in Europe is not working, but the fiasco over the withholding tax provides another. Instead of vetoing the tax at the beginning, the Prime Minister has allowed the threat of it to hang over the City for more than a year, with all the damage that such uncertainty causes. The Chancellor's own Treasury report states that
"continuing uncertainty…will increase the likelihood that borrowers will look for alternative sources of finance outside the EU".
If the Prime Minister has been so tough about the tax, how is it that he has allowed that uncertainty to continue? How is it that, at Helsinki, he agreed to yet more talks? How is it that the German Finance Minister should have said on Friday that he had had
"differing signals from the British"?
How was it that the EU Tax Commissioner should have said that he is "hopeful and positive" about introducing a withholding tax in the next six months? Was not Helsinki the chance to end the uncertainty? Instead of simply vetoing the tax, should not the right hon. Gentleman have insisted that it would never be introduced by the back door through qualified majority voting?
European defence was also on the Helsinki agenda. We are in favour of an enhanced European defence capability within NATO. However, we are concerned about the current development of what is euphemistically called readily deployable EU military capabilities outside NATO—in other words, a European army.
Has the Prime Minister seen the comments of the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe in The New York Times today? General Wesley Clark says:
"the main American concern…is decoupling or duplication or discrimination against non-EU, European members of NATO".
General Clark also says:
"the new European plan has the potential to cause long-term irritation for the United States."
It is no good saying that the Americans are not worried about it—the Secretary of State for Defence admitted that they are only moments ago at Question Time.
Does the Prime Minister remember saying at the Amsterdam summit two years ago:
Europe's defence should remain a matter for NATO and not the EU",
and calling the very plan to which he has now signed up "an ill-judged transplant operation"?
The decision to establish a defence identity outside NATO is momentous—it is one of the biggest changes in foreign and defence policies on which the Government have embarked. We believe that it has profound dangers. Is not it time that the rationale for and considerable risks of the change were fully explained to the House?
Does not the challenge of European Union enlargement most starkly expose the fact that Labour in Europe is not working? We think that enlargement is the single most pressing issue facing Europe today. We believe that an enlarged Europe cannot work unless it is more flexible, unless countries can be in the European Union but not run by the European Union. The Prime Minister believes the opposite—that Europe needs to be more integrated, that more powers and rights of member states need to be transferred to Brussels. Sometimes the right hon. Gentleman leads the way on integration and sometimes he gets dragged along in that direction, but that is always the path that he takes. That is why at the Helsinki summit he agreed to an open-ended discussion on abolishing the veto, the development of a European army and more tax harmonisation.
The Prime Minister has managed to pull off the unbelievable double of signing up to the integrationist agenda while simultaneously being isolated in Europe. Baroness Thatcher was isolated when she won Britain the rebate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was isolated when he won the opt-out from the single currency. Those British Prime Ministers may have sometimes been isolated, but they came back with something that we needed. Is not the right hon. Gentleman the first British Prime Minister in history to return from a summit both isolated and empty handed?

The Prime Minister: I think that when we got to Baroness Thatcher, we pretty well worked out the true author of that remark.
Let me deal with some of the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He accuses us of not doing enough for enlargement. His policy, let me remind him, is to block enlargement. He is committed to blocking enlargement unless the European Union agrees to a treaty change. All 15 member states have to agree to such a treaty change, but not one does. Is there one? The idea of lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on doing more for enlargement illustrates how completely fatuous his policy on Europe has become.
As for beef, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's criticism today was a trifle different from before—he is now accusing me of not negotiating enough. For weeks Mr. Yo-yo has been round the television studios, saying that I was a puppet dancing to Mr. Jospin's tune and asking why I was talking to him instead of fighting. It is another fatuous position. [Interruption.] The Tories shout, but let me remind them of one big difference between us and them. When we came to power, how many countries could British beef be sold in? It was a round figure, approximating to zero—and that was after the Tory beef war.
On the withholding tax, having accused me of being a puppet, of caving in and dancing to someone else's tune on beef, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of being isolated—the very thing he asks me to be on beef, but for which he criticises me when I am. The right hon. Gentleman's biggest cheek came when he stated that we should have vetoed the withholding tax from the beginning because that is what the Tories did. Well, we have done some research on what they did: the tax arose from a decision taken in April 1996, and, on the previous occasion on which it was on the agenda, in 1989, Britain voted for it under a Conservative Government. The country that vetoed it then was Luxembourg. The Tories cannot tell us that we should have gone straight in with a veto.
The right hon. Gentleman also made some points on defence, a subject on which he is perhaps more ridiculous than on any other. If I understand his position, he is in favour of defence co-operation in Europe, but in a way consistent with NATO.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Inside NATO.

The Prime Minister: Inside NATO. In other words, he supports the European strategic defence initiative agreed by the Tories in 1996 at Berlin. Let me read out what the NATO summit of April 1999 said:
We confirm that a stronger European role will help contribute to the vitality of our alliance for the 21st century.
The Deputy Secretary of State for the United States said:
The US is for this. It is in our interests for Europe to be able to deal effectively".
The United States favours the European strategic defence initiative. Finally, let us hear what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—the shadow Foreign Secretary—said in June:
The relationship between British and French forces at an operational level is fantastic. It should be developed. We are the two most serious countries about defence in Europe…We need to do things together."—[Official Report, 10 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 812.]
What has changed between then and now? Baroness Thatcher has brought the Tories to heel. All that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is doing in the name
of strength is actually weakness. By choosing not to stand up to the ultra-Thatcherites who run his party, he has taken a party that used—no matter what one's politics—to be a serious party of government and turned it into the equivalent of a religious sect. It is that error of judgment from which all his errors stem—on the renegotiation of the treaty of Rome that would give us an exit route from the EU; on blocking enlargement; or on the absurd positions that he has taken on every policy that relates to Europe.[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Those on the Opposition Front Bench should know better.

The Prime Minister: We shall carry on with our sensible, positive and constructive relationship with Europe. That does not mean, and never has meant, that we shall fail to defend the national interest, but it means that we shall be unyielding when we need to be—as with the withholding tax—shall look for agreement where we can find it, and shall always be persuasive and sensible in our attitudes.
There will be times when we are in dispute with Europe—that happens with all countries—but not every dispute has to be a crisis. The British rebate, negotiated at Berlin in March—and kept—is an example of that. The Leader of the Opposition told us that we would get rolled over at Berlin and that the rebate would go, but we came back with the rebate intact and with the best deal on structural and cohesion funds that this country has ever had—we did it without handbagging anybody. We did it by taking a sensible attitude.
There may be—indeed there are—parts of our media and of the Conservative party who have such a violent dislike of Europe that they will abuse it and exaggerate its weaknesses to an absurd degree, but we will not let them dictate the policy on Europe. The Tory party can give in to them, but we will not, because in the name of defending Britain's national interest, they betray Britain's national interest.
We heard what we expected from the Leader of the Opposition. When we analyse the details of the policies that he proposes, we find that they are far removed from support for this country; they are a mixture of extremism and opportunism. This country prefers grown-up, sensible government.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I begin with the closing theme of the comments of the Leader of the Conservative party—isolationism. The majority of Members would readily concur—whatever the gradation or the spectrum of their views on matters European—that the one matter that should remain profoundly isolated from engagement with Europe is the current stance of the British Conservative party, which is deeply against our national interest.
I welcome what was said and the steps that will be followed, as a result of the Helsinki summit, in respect of the Russian position. The Government deserve support, as do the efforts of the European Union. Does the Prime Minister concur that that matter is an important test of the EU' s ability to manifest a more constructive and coherent foreign policy approach to such a significant neighbour as Russia, which currently is behaving in such an outrageous fashion over humanitarian issues?
On defence, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that—despite all the hokum and nonsense about a European army—among those who take a more sensible and constructive interest in the matter, there will be a welcome for the modest but significant step towards the establishment of a European rapid reaction force? That is not least because it bolts us further into NATO and bolts a European component into NATO, which is essential for our long-term interest.
On the all-important issue of enlargement—especially in respect of Turkey—does the Prime Minister agree that a seminal decision was reached in principle in Helsinki? However, Europe must be emphatic that, while wanting to welcome Turkey into the European community of nations in due course, Turkey must respond by a significant improvement in its domestic human rights agenda. We should not lose sight of that simply because of the bigger and welcome aim of enlarging the union in that geographic direction.
As for our friends in France, the old alliance is under some strain at present—never mind relations between Mr. Jospin and the Prime Minister. The benefit of hindsight is a great thing. However, does the Prime Minister acknowledge, with hindsight, that, while dealing with the matter in the sane and sensible way that the Government have adopted during recent weeks, it might have been better to realise that the French could have reneged on the agreement that they appeared to have signed up to? In acknowledging that, we should not lose sight of the bigger truth: British beef exports are locked out of Commonwealth countries throughout the world. We are locked out of the United States. We have no legal recourse in any of these areas of the world.
The only reason that we have a legal recourse—it is not Britain versus France but the rest of Europe versus France in this matter—is that we are members of, and active participants in, the European Union. When the sceptics and the critics say that this is an argument for disengagement, there are those of us who will strongly make the case that it is an argument for more proactive engagement in Europe, and for using the mechanisms that Europe makes available to us to ensure that the undoubted unlawful activity of the French is brought to a speedy conclusion in due course and in our national interest.
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I acknowledge that Conservative Members find this boring, because they are not interested in rational dialogue about Europe across the Floor of the House. Long may they remain bored and impotent on matters European.
On the issue of the withholding tax, the Prime Minister said, tellingly but not altogether revealingly:
I have made it clear that we will not permit that".
What does that mean? Does that mean, as far as the eurobond market is concerned, that he will be willing to exercise a British veto, come Oporto in June? It would be helpful if he would clarify that issue.
Finally—

Mr. Eric Forth: That is the second "finally."

Mr. Kennedy: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is subjecting my words to such minute textual analysis. It is better than can be said of what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in matters European where the rest of the House is involved.
Will the Prime Minister none the less acknowledge that the mood music in terms of the summit was that Britain is clearly not playing the central leading role in Europe that it should? It cannot and it will not until Britain and the British Government are more unambiguous about our commitment to the single currency, and about being fully plugged into the European project as a whole.

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's final point, Britain was clearly playing a very central and leading role in the defence debate.
In relation to the euro, we have set out our position. In order for Britain to join the euro sensibly, the economic conditions must be met. Those conditions remain, and they are right and in this country's interests.
In respect of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on defence, we agree entirely that it is important to see the developments as an addition to our ability to affect issues in the right way. I know that some Conservatives have been saying, "Of course we want this, but only when it is within NATO." I do not think that they yet understand that this is actually building on the European security and defence initiative, so it is entirely consistent with NATO. Indeed, the force can be used by NATO, but it is then available to us to use it where the alliance
"as a whole is not engaged".
In other words, the alliance can decide that it will be engaged in a particular situation; but should, for example, America decide not to be engaged, we can have our own force in the limited tasks that are called Petersberg tasks—humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace intervention missions. Only a Conservative party utterly in thrall to the anti-Europeans could see that in a way that NATO does not see it, as was made clear by NATO's comments at the summit in April. [Interruption.] There was a shout about Strobe Talbott. In fact, he has given some very clear statements on it. He has said:
It is in our interests for Europe to be able to deal effectively with challenges to European security well before they reach the threshold of triggering US combat involvement"—
not that it will make any difference to the Conservatives.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about enlargement. We have said that we very much welcome the fact that Turkey is a candidate country, but we have made it clear—and it is clear in the conclusions—that the Copenhagen criteria on human rights and democracy must be met before the accession negotiations get under way.
In respect of France, the right hon. Gentleman is also right. We are extremely disappointed at the French decision. That decision is wrong. It is wrong in law, and it is politically misguided and misjudged. However, it is important that we recognise that it is only because we are members of the European Union that we can sell beef in 13 of the 15 member states, that we are actually selling it now in five countries outside the European Union and that we are free to sell it outside the European Union. When we came to office, not merely was the beef ban in place in Europe, but we were banned from selling it in third countries as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "By Europe."] I do not want to get into that internal row in the Conservative party about which side of the fence it is on. It is important—[Interruption.] We have done enough of that.
It is important that we continue to persuade countries. I wish to make one point again: British beef is the safest in the world because we sell only animals that are under

30 months old and that were born after August 1996 when the new rules were implemented. They are the strictest rules on animal feeding anywhere in the world, and there has not been a single case of BSE in such an animal in this country. When other countries consider the incidence of BSE as a whole in this country, they fail to recognise that it occurs within older animals—the animals that we are not selling to other countries. I am afraid that we must recognise that we have a big job of persuading to do. Even when the beef ban is fully lifted, we shall still have to go out and really sell British beef. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that many Commonwealth countries and the United States of America have a ban in place on British beef.
In respect of the withholding tax, we have made it quite clear all the way through that we are prepared to use the veto if necessary. Countries such as Germany have perfectly legitimate concerns. They experience tax evasion on a significant scale because money simply goes across the border to countries where banking secrecy rules apply and where people can relieve themselves of their obligation to pay their proper tax in Germany. They want that stopped, and we are entirely sympathetic to that. However, as I have emphasised many times before, it must be done in such as way that it does not put at risk what is not just a major British and City of London interest, but a major European interest—namely, the eurobond market.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Just 10 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, 10 of the 13 countries recognised as applicants were members of either the Soviet empire or of the Soviet Union. Is that fact not a measure of the historic importance of the decisions that were taken at the Helsinki summit? To show that Europe recognises the importance of that, can my right hon. Friend give us an idea of the working assumptions or the target dates that he and his colleagues have set for the first batch of countries formally to join the European Union? If we do not grasp this historic opportunity, disillusion may well set in.

The Prime Minister: Of course, all the countries are treated the same and according to the same criteria. In a sense, it is up to them how ready they get. In the conclusions, we say that we would want to be ready ourselves to welcome them in by 2002 if they comply with the conditions of entry.

Sir David Madel: In order to make progress on its application to join the European Union, has Turkey been required to undertake that it will withdraw its troops from northern Cyprus? Are we, Greece and Turkey going to continue as guarantors of the 1960 Cyprus constitution, or is that task going to be transferred to the European Union?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not a requirement or precondition for Turkey's accession, but general words in the conclusions of the communiqué make it clear that there is an obligation on people to do their best to resolve border disputes. We have also made it clear—this was welcomed by Cyprus and by Greece—that the resolution of the dispute in Cyprus cannot be a precondition to Cyprus's accession. The hon. Gentleman will find that
most people recognise the importance of resolving the dispute, but do not want it to be a precondition on either the accession of Turkey or the accession of Cyprus.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Since the Prime Minister has confirmed to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) that there is now no obstacle to Cyprus being admitted to the European Union—provided, of course, that it complies with the appropriate conditions—will my right hon. Friend further confirm that it would, to say the very least, be anomalous if one country in the European Union had a third of its territory occupied by a country that is a candidate for EU membership? Will he confirm that pressure ought, therefore, to be placed on Turkey to withdraw those forces as soon as possible, under appropriate arrangements, and that the best thing that Turkey can do to advance its candidature will be to urge Rauf Denktas to make an appropriate agreement with the lawful Government of Cyprus?

The Prime Minister: The most helpful thing that I can say is that of course we want the dispute in Cyprus to be resolved. As I said, there is a general obligation on countries to do their best to resolve such disputes. Under the auspices of the UN, talks are being conducted between the respective parties in Cyprus, and I hope that they will be successful. At this stage, that is probably the most helpful and diplomatic thing for me to say.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What benefit does the City derive from the Prime Minister's refusal to say that, if necessary, the Government will veto the withholding tax?

The Prime Minister: I have just that I would do that, so the City is probably not in the same state of ignorance as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this European summit, like all European summits, was difficult and that he had vigorously to fight our corner? Is not that logical and inevitable in a Europe of nation states? Is not the alternative, of Britain being outside the European Union, a position in which we would have no leverage, no influence and no allies? Whether the beef ban, the withholding tax or defence co-operation were under discussion, our voice would count for nothing. Is not that the harsh, cold reality—a reality that the Conservative party does not even begin to address?

The Prime Minister: Of course all countries fight their corner on issues that affect their vital national interest, and this country should be no different from any other. [Interruption.] Conservative Members shout that we have not done it very successfully, but I repeat that at the Berlin summit we got a better deal than any other country could possibly have got. We kept the rebate when everyone was saying that, on enlargement, we would have to give it up. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were saying that we would negotiate away the rebate, but we did not. We kept it, and we added to that a good deal for

objective 1 status and structural funds, and we did so in a way that did not isolate Britain from anybody. That, in my view, is the proper way to negotiate.
As a result of our negotiations, there is a change in the balance of contributions between Britain, France and Italy. Although we shall still be big net contributors, our contributions will, in future years, be far more in line with those of comparably sized countries. That is safeguarding our interests.
I remind the House that the Conservatives have been accusing me of being isolated on the withholding tax. I am not isolated, but if I were, it would be precisely because I am prepared to stand up for this country's interests. The Conservatives want me to do what they, as a party, now urge, because they have given in to the Thatcherites who, I am afraid, now run the party. That is why I draw a distinction between the way Margaret Thatcher negotiated for the first six or seven years of her premiership and the Conservatives' later negotiating position. Margaret Thatcher negotiated the single European market, and in the course of that she gave away the veto on more items than any Prime Minister before or since. She did so entirely justifiably because that was in Britain's interests. She took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
All that tends to be forgotten, but it is true, and it was only in the later period of Conservative Government that Britain moved into a position of outright oppositionalism and obstructionism. It is a tragedy that the Conservative party forced the next Prime Minister—against his will, I believe—into a similar position, so that on BSE, the ban was imposed and we had a beef war, which is generally agreed to have been a rather humiliating spectacle for this country. I repeat: no matter how much parts of the media or of the Conservative party urge on me a similar course, I shall not pursue it. It is utterly bogus patriotism and it is pretending to stand up for this country's national interests when actually they would be undermined.

Mr. Eric Forth: When the Prime Minister reflects on Schröder's flouting of the single market on Mannesmann, and Jospin's flouting of European law on beef, as well as, indeed, his own isolation on the withholding tax, how does he assess progress towards the vision of Europe that he and Mr. Prodi share?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that Chancellor Schröder has intervened in the single market. He is perfectly entitled to make his view clear. I have made it clear all the way through that I believe that the European market is right, and that that is how things should happen. It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman attacks me over these issues, because of course he would like to get out of the European Union altogether. He says to me that I should be doing better in the EU, but I am afraid that his mouth is not the one from which such sentiments should be uttered. That is the choice. It is the Conservative party's tragedy that, I am afraid, the right hon. Gentleman finds more support on the Opposition Benches today than I would ever have thought possible.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The decision on Turkey will be greatly welcomed by most of the members of the Turkish Parliament, who are well aware of the concerns in western Europe over the future


of Cyprus, and want to enter the European Union as soon as is humanly possible. Furthermore, it will be a spur to those in the Turkish Parliament who want to implement an agenda of modernising Parliament, including changing the way in which it operates.

The Prime Minister: I wholeheartedly agree with that. Managing to secure this step forward is a great tribute to the Finnish presidency, which performed magnificently throughout its six months; to Turkey, for having acknowledged that the rest of the EU wants to involve it in the candidate status; and to Costas Simitis and the Greek Government, who had the courage to grasp the opportunity. They deserve our congratulations. It has long been our desire to see Turkey more closely involved in the EU. Such involvement is of very big strategic interest to this country and the EU.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Summits of this nature have their difficulties and successes and, in fairness, the Prime Minister has emerged quite well from a very difficult weekend. On the withholding tax, he has stood firm—contrary to the suggestions of some. On Turkey, he has taken a lead that many of us welcome. As one who has taken an interest in Turkey and Cyprus for the past 25 years, I welcome the decision in Helsinki. Will the Prime Minister commend the Finnish presidency for the way in which it handled the matter? I see the different nuances of statements on Cyprus; I can read between the lines and I welcome the change in our Government policy on Cyprus.
Coming from an agricultural constituency, I am obviously very disappointed at the French approach to the beef issue. However, one cannot stop people breaking the law—that is the problem—and they are breaking the law. Now that the matter is going into court and will probably take about 18 months to resolve, will the Prime Minister support the UK beef industry in any claim for damages that may arise following the Court's decision? The Prime Minister mentioned 13 countries, but we cannot really get into Italy because we would have to go through France. Therefore, a beef claim could be built, and will need support.
The summit commended the political process in Northern Ireland and asked for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in its totality. Did all those present realise that that meant the complete disarmament of all illegal arms in Northern Ireland by May next year?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, people are very familiar with the detail of the agreement and the need for all of it to be implemented.
In respect of beef, we would of course support UK farmers in their claims for compensation. There has been a transit agreement with France, so we should manage to transport beef through France en route to other countries. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the French are breaking the law: they have broken the law. We were right to try to persuade them not to do so because that would have been better for our farmers. As more sensible people understand, getting there by persuasion is more likely to sell beef than doing so simply under court order.
In respect of Turkey, I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in the matter. The decision potentially opens the door to a new era in relations with Turkey.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On the interdepartmental conference, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that not only will Ministers report back to the House on progress, but that, when draft proposals are tabled at the conference, they will also be put to the House, so that they can be debated in the House before they are agreed, and not debated only after they have become a fait accompli?

The Prime Minister: We shall keep the House informed in the usual way. Any treaty changes that require the force of law will have to come before the House.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I happen to agree with the Prime Minister that the strength of the European Union when there is an internal dispute is that we have the benefit of supranational institutions such as the European Court. That is why no serious politician would ever advocate withdrawal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman regrets having done so in 1983.
On defence, can the Prime Minister clarify the discussions that he had with the new applicants? It is clear that the European Union is expanding well beyond the remit of NATO. It is therefore essential that the EU has some military ability to react in circumstances in which there may be a threat to any future member country, which may not automatically engage American interest. In a sense, membership of the European Union is a security guarantee.

The Prime Minister: Most of the applicant countries rightly see their future in NATO. As we have always made clear, we see NATO as the cornerstone of our own defence. It is important to emphasise that the purpose of the defence identity or defence initiative is to allow us to act in certain circumstances, where there is consent—each country would have to consent to act in a particular way.
The force that we are discussing is confined to what are called the Petersberg tasks—the tasks defined in a strictly limited way in relation to humanitarian or peacekeeping objectives. No one seriously believes that, if an issue such as Kosovo comes up again, we will not want to act with NATO. The proposed force also gives us the ability to put right something that Kosovo laid bare—the lack of proper capability in many of the European defence forces, although probably less so in the British defence forces than in those of most other countries. Although large numbers of forces were available in theory, in practice, we did not have large numbers of forces that could do the type of work that was required. That has greatly stimulated people to ask whether we have the right capability. We, for example, are asking questions about strategic lift and whether we have the capability in that respect. That is entirely sensible.
It is unfortunate that that has become a party issue between us, because it builds precisely on the work that the previous Prime Minister did at Berlin in 1996. To set that hare running, as the shadow Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), did by going over to the United


States and saying that it is an attempt to break up NATO, is not just wrong, but fundamentally misguided. In the end, it does this country no favours at all.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Kosovo, where the Prime Minister says that we did not have sufficient capability, when Bernard Kouchner was asked what was needed, he replied, "Money, money, money; police, police, police." Was the parlous situation of winter in the Balkans discussed at Helsinki? In particular, did anybody at Helsinki have any idea how the Danube could be unblocked without the unpalatable prospect of talking to Mr. Milosevic?

The Prime Minister: We have always wanted the Danube to be unblocked, but we are not prepared to start trading with Milosevic the things that he wants. Kosovo was discussed at length at the summit. My hon. Friend is right to say that Mr. Kouchner is making it clear what he needs. He needs armed police, incidentally, which is why the Royal Ulster Constabulary has willingly offered to help.
As for money, we are playing our part substantially. It is right, however, that other countries must realise that our obligation to Kosovo has not ended; it continues. In particular, we agreed that we would consider ways of pushing on the entire stability pact process for the region. That is also immensely important. The countries involved will require a great deal of reconstruction to survive the next few years.

Mr. William Cash: In the presidency conclusions to which both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence referred, there is mention of
determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and…EU-led military operations in response to international crises.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that each of the member states would be able to consent. Does he accept that, under the Petersberg tasks to which all this relates, including a wider defence policy, majority voting applies where a joint strategy and a common action have already been devolved? Does he also accept that, in plain English, as in the Oxford dictionary, "autonomous" means "self-governing" or "independent"?
As for strengthening NATO, there can be no serious doubt that that wider defence policy is causing enormous concern in the United States and enormous enthusiasm in Russia.

The Prime Minister: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is seeing conspiracies where none exists. The full sentence from which he has quoted in part is in paragraph 27. It reads:
The European Council underlines its determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations.

There is no way in which any country will give up control over its own armed forces. The European Commission and Parliament are not involved in any way. This is where NATO does not wish to be engaged, or where America for any reason does not want to be engaged.

Mr. Cash: Autonomous.

The Prime Minister: It is autonomous in circumstances where the alliance as a whole does not wish to be engaged. If the hon. Gentleman reads further, he will see that the document refers to forces
capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks.
Those are specific and limited tasks.

Mr. Cash: Majority voting.

The Prime Minister: It is not majority voting. No country has any intention of giving over its armed forces or defence to another country. I would not do that on behalf of this country and neither would any other country do it on behalf of its armed forces.
The hon. Gentleman talks about huge concern in the United States. There has been some concern, which has been mainly prompted by senior Conservatives going to the United States and talking complete nonsense. [Interruption.] If I remember correctly, if, in the old days, Labour party spokesmen had started attacking this country's defence policy abroad, the Conservative Government would have had our flesh hanging in strips off the rafters.

Ann Clwyd: I agree with the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's remarks on Turkey. However, may I emphasise again that there are serious human rights concerns about Turkey's candidacy? I have recently written to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressing some of those concerns. Torture is a daily occurrence and freedom of expression, especially for Kurds, is non-existent. Several Kurdish Members of Parliament are still in prison, including one woman who is very unwell. If the death penalty were to be lifted, that would be a consideration. However, it is time that the Turks treated the Kurds as human beings and not something less.

The Prime Minister: I cannot share all my hon. Friend's sentiments but I say to her that it is precisely to meet legitimate concerns that it was made clear that the accession negotiations do not begin until the Copenhagen criteria on human rights and democracy are met. I think that that is a pretty good guarantee.

Sir Michael Spicer: Given the hostile nature of France's actions towards this country in recent weeks, why was the Foreign Secretary seen on television last week cuddling the French Prime Minister in Helsinki?

The Prime Minister: That requires a delicate answer. I think that the hon. Gentleman really means that to be a serious question. If anything is an indication of what is happening to the Conservative party, it is that question.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Turkey's road to candidature has


been long and sometimes disappointing? Does he also agree that Turkey's accession is important not only because it is a secular democracy, a valuable geopolitical power in a troubled region, an important ally and partner in NATO, WEU and the Council of Europe, and our bilateral relations are good but because the candidature process involves it in opportunities and obligations?

The Prime Minister: I fully agree. It is interesting that the step forward with Turkey has been greeted well in both Greece and Turkey. It is unusual for that to happen. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Turkey is a valuable NATO ally.

Mr. David Curry: As it is patently obvious that the rules and arrangements for a Europe of 15 cannot function in a Europe of 25 or 26, what confidence can we have that the intergovernmental conference next year will tackle the matter with greater urgency and efficiency than the Amsterdam conference, which was a total cop-out?

The Prime Minister: It is right that the so-called Amsterdam left-overs are important. We must tackle them, or we cannot make enlargement or a properly functioning European Union a reality. We have already made it clear that we want to maintain a veto on key matters such as defence, treaty change and taxation. However, we must also be prepared to take a view of the European Union that allows decisions to be made in the enlarged body; otherwise, we, as well as the European Union, will be the losers.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not it a fact that, while there is justified concern—which I have shared for many years—about Turkey's human rights record, Turkey has, for a long time, successfully resisted all attempts to turn the country into a fundamentalist state where no human rights would exist? Is there not a far better chance for the improvement of human rights in Turkey if that country is a serious candidate for European Union membership?

The Prime Minister: That must be right. It is the reason for our strong support of the initiative that the Finnish presidency has succeeded in pulling off.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Although I do not believe that I have ever been accused of being a Thatcherite—certainly not in the ignorant way in which the Prime Minister habitually uses that epithet—does he understand that, while the proposed withholding tax poses a serious threat to the City of London, and must be resisted—I congratulate him on the vigour with which he resists it—it is only the tip of the much larger iceberg of general tax harmonisation? Will he accept that the leaders of the European Union believe, almost unanimously, that the single currency will not work until there is general tax harmonisation? If Britain were included in that, our taxation rates would be much higher, and comparable with those of Germany. Many Germans, at every level of prosperity, are trying to get their money out of the country because of the high rate of German taxation.

The Prime Minister: It is simply not right to say that the rest of Europe is in favour of tax harmonisation. Even

if there were a substantial body of opinion in favour, the proper role for Britain would be to get into the argument and stop it, and we could not do that if we were removed to the margins of Europe. The hon. Gentleman put his question to me in a fair way; let me put it back to him. If I were to adopt the position that his leader has urged on me and say in relation to next year's intergovernmental conference that I would block enlargement unless we agreed a clause on flexibility—which no other European country would agree to, and which would not be in our interests anyway—I would lose any influence I had in Europe whatever. I would then face the choice of either complete humiliation, because none of the other countries would agree to that, so I would have to withdraw my block on enlargement, or blocking enlargement, in which case I can tell him that the arguments in respect of Britain would be gone altogether.
Defence is another example. The defence initiative was not invented when we came to office; it already existed as part of earlier treaties agreed to by the Conservatives. We have made sure—and we will make sure, because I shall not agree to it otherwise—that defence policy is made in such a way that it is fully consistent with NATO and does not undermine it in any shape or form. If the British voice were not there arguing that case, Britain would be worse off.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to help the people of Chechnya is to provide maximum assistance to the Russian authorities in combating the international financial crime and money laundering that lie at the root of so much of the terrorism that the Russians fear from the Chechens?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, which is why we have to choose with care what instruments we use to try to put pressure on Russia in this situation. For example, we have agreed that some provisions of the partnership and co-operation agreement should be suspended as a result of what is happening in Chechnya, but he is quite right to say that we would be misguided if we tried to undermine our memorandum of understanding with the Russians in respect of organised crime and money laundering because it helps us to try to sort out the situation in Russia. We understand the concerns that Russia and the Russian people have about terrorism, but nothing can justify a disproportionate response in Chechnya.

Mr. Michael Colvin: During the discussions in Helsinki about collective European defence, what was said about the size of our national defence budgets? Is the Prime Minister aware that the United States of America spends nearly 4 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence and this year has increased its budget by 10 per cent. while in Europe the figure is 2.2 per cent. of GDP and falling, as member states scramble to maintain the convergence criteria for the euro? If he wants to give a lead in Europe, should not Britain set an example by increasing its defence budget to overcome the problems of overstretch and to bear a fairer share of the burden of collective defence in NATO?

The Prime Minister: The constraint on defence budgets is nothing to do with euro convergence; it is to do with public spending discipline. Like any other country, we have to remain disciplined in our approach to public spending. The hon. Gentleman is right in a sense, however, because the whole purpose of the initiative is to get European countries including Britain—although Britain probably has less to do than most—to consider what they are spending money on and whether it is being spent wisely. He may be right about the 2.2 per cent., although I do not know the precise figure, but the plain fact of the matter is that although, some countries are spending that much, or in some cases more, if one analyses the defence capability that they achieve as a result, one sees that it is not as impressive as it should be, even for such spending.
The Americans should support the initiative, done properly, because a common complaint of theirs, which they make with some justification, is that Europe expects America to bear the entire burden of defence spending. I am saying that we need a better relationship in which we analyse and improve our own capability and make sure that it can do what we want it to do while remaining entirely knitted together with America on the key NATO issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that we must move on. There is other important business to protect.

Point of Order

Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the debate on transport on 8 December, the Deputy Prime Minister said, at column 837 of Hansard, among other places, that his view was that Conservative members of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee wholeheartedly supported his Bill to establish the Strategic Rail Authority. That is quite incorrect. The report to which he referred makes it plain in paragraph 5 on page viii that the official Opposition wholeheartedly oppose the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority.
Has the right hon. Gentleman indicated his intention to come to the House to correct that misleading statement? Is there any procedural rule to protect the rights of Back Benchers on pre-legislative hearings of Select Committees who, although perhaps perfectly content to allow a report to be unanimous, none the less want to protect their own position as members of Her Majesty's official Opposition?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise that point of order, but he must know that this is a matter for interpretation and debate. The Chair has no knowledge that the Deputy Prime Minister is intending to make a statement, but the Transport Bill is due to be debated and that will provide an opportunity for matters of argument and interpretation to be determined.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(2) (European Standing Committees),

FISHERIES

That the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th December 1999, relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2000 and certain conditions under which they may be fished, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) shall not apply to any proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to fisheries, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of those proceedings not later than Seven o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Fisheries

[Relevant document: European Union Document No. 7542/99 concerning the Commission's report to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programme for the fishing fleet at the end of 1997.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should make it clear to the House that the Speaker has selected both the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th December 1999, relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2000 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that many fish stocks remain in poor shape and need to be rebuilt for the future; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen consistent with the sustainable management of stocks, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.
It is traditional to hold a fisheries debate each year before the December Agriculture Council to decide total allowable catches and quotas for the following year. It will be an important debate this year, given the recommendations of the International Council for Exploration of the Seas and of the Commission. This is an important occasion for Members from fishing constituencies and for those with a general interest in fisheries. Although total allowable catches and quotas are the main subjects, the debate enables hon. Members to focus on wider issues. I should like to touch on some of the problems that have affected the fishing industry over the past year, and to look ahead to some of the important questions for the future.
This year, the Select Committee on Agriculture produced a report on sea fisheries. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and its members for producing a thoughtful and well-constructed report that adds to the debate on fisheries. Although I regret that the debate has been cut short by the statement, I was pleased that, under the new procedures that have been introduced in the House, we were able to have a three-hour debate on the Agriculture Committee report. That was a useful innovation.
I want to begin by saying a word about the science behind the setting of this year's TACs. There is a debate about the science and the way in which it is applied. Fishermen have views on that, as hon. Members can quite understand. I am keen that there should be a greater exchange of information between scientists and fishermen.
This autumn, the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations went to sea on the MAFF research vessel, and saw the detail and quality of the work that our scientists do. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has regularly contributed articles on fishing science to Fishing News,

which enables the industry to read about the scientific work and the calculations on fish stocks, and to comment on them. CEFAS scientists have visited fishing ports and have had useful meetings with fishermen. In the coming year, we want to discuss with the industry how to build on those contacts and put them on a more systematic basis.

Mr. John Gummer: We all want a closer relationship between fishermen and scientists. I hope that the Minister will pursue this matter with great vigour, given the Canadian experience. Despite specific warnings from the scientists, fishermen in Canada said that there were plenty of fish right up until the last one disappeared from the grand banks. It is important to be careful when considering the anecdotal evidence in this area.

Mr. Morley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. We must ensure that we have a proper scientific basis for the assessment of fish stocks. That is not to say, however, that fishermen do not have valuable information to contribute. We want to work with them to develop that. The fisheries conservation group enables fishermen, scientists and fisheries managers to meet to consider and develop practical conservation measures. Some helpful measures have resulted, which I consider to be to the advantage of fisheries management. We want to develop that further.

Mr. Anthony Steen: May I explain why the Minister was given such a hard time when he visited my constituency last week, and was roughed up by the fishermen? They cannot understand why, despite the conservation measures, they are having to throw more fish overboard—having caught them dead—than they are managing to land in their own ports. Is the Minister aware that there is now a sea lion epidemic? Sea lions are coming from all over the north of Scotland and beyond to find the dead fish, and to catch live fish as well. That is why the quota goes down by 30 per cent. each year. The quota system is madness: the Minister should get rid of it.

Mr. Morley: I did not know that there were so many discards that sea lions are coming all the way from the south Atlantic to the British Isles to eat the fish. Nevertheless, discards are an important issue.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not join me at the meeting in Brixham. The fishermen did not "rough me up", although they made their point robustly, as would be expected. I thought that the meeting provided a useful opportunity to hear both sides of the argument. The fishermen allowed me, with some courtesy, to make my points and to answer their questions. I have no objection to the holding of such meetings elsewhere, to enable fishermen to discuss the issues at first hand.
Time is being squeezed. Although I find it difficult to resist interventions from Members who are interested in this topic, I want to say what I have to say as quickly as possible, in order to provide the maximum opportunity for Back Benchers to speak.
Let me say something about this year's total allowable catches and quotas. The scientific advice relating to most of the stocks that we are considering is depressing: there is no doubt that many stocks are under pressure. The North sea cod quota has not been taken up this year,
because the fish are not there to be caught. Monkfish are another example, and many round-fish stocks in the Irish sea are under considerable pressure. The resulting quota cuts proposed by the Commission have been described as the most drastic for 10 years, and we must think carefully about the consequences to the fishing industry.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister be invoking the Hague preference for, say, cod in the North sea and monkfish in the western Scottish waters?

Mr. Morley: We intend to invoke a preference in regard to certain stocks when we consider it to be in our national interest. That applies to a range of stocks, and we need to give the matter some thought. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I am scheduled to meet representatives of the fishing industry this week, before I go to the Council of Ministers. I shall have an opportunity to discuss the preference then.
We need to take scientific advice seriously. It is provided in good faith by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, after thorough stock assessment and analysis. Some criticise the work of ICES because they do not like the implications of its proposals, but we cannot shoot the messenger because we do not like the message. Fisheries scientists do not have an easy job, but they address it professionally and are committed to it. We should recognise that. To be fair to the industry, some industry groups have pressed us on the need to respect the scientific advice on next year's TACs.
Nor should we blame the extent of the cuts proposed on the need for a precautionary approach. Significant cuts are required regardless of that approach, because many of our key stocks are in extremely poor shape. Some are at such low levels that they are over-dependent on the strength of incoming recruitment, which varies for natural reasons. As a result, the size of catches in the following year can vary significantly. It is not just a case of pressure on stocks, although that may obtain in some cases; there is also the question of natural cycles—for instance, the seven-year cycle applying to cod. Two poor year classes in 1997 and 1998 mean that current catch levels are already well down, with little prospect of improvement in the next couple of years. The number of young fish recruiting to the fishery in 1998 was by the far lowest in more than 30 years. In those circumstances, a deep cut in the TAC for next year will be inevitable and, indeed, essential if stock is to be conserved and rebuilt.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: How can the Minister square what he has just said with the fact that, at Brixham last week, he made the point that he personally completely opposed the reduction of some minimum landing sizes and the abolition of others? After everything he said in opposition, is he going to justify pictures of 45 million dead fish floating in the sea because they have been discarded under the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Morley: I have made it clear that I take seriously the issue of discards. I also take minimum landing size reductions seriously. We cannot overestimate the discards issue. Many discards are the result of normal fishing practice, with undersized and unmarketable fish being caught. It is true that, when we have quota management,

some marketable fish will be caught and discarded. That is one of the undesirable side effects of quota management, but the problem is to do not simply with the common fisheries policy, which is often blamed, but with the available quotas. The south-west is a case in point. Apart from the fact that the original quotas were based on the track record before the CFP and that more fish is caught and landed now, the quota has gone down in the non-sector. Boats have moved from the non-sector to producer organisations, taking their quota with them, and that has a knock-on consequence.
I said to fishermen in Brixham, "What is the alternative in those circumstances?" We have to manage a quota. Some fishermen may be catching fish accidentally and cannot stop. Some may be deliberately targeting fish. If we do not have such management, how do we control the effect on those stocks?
The answer from the fishermen was that I was the Minister and it was for me to sort such things out. No solution was forthcoming because there is no easy solution. There may be some alternatives to quota management, but all have advantages and disadvantages. With some of the more attractive ones, such as multi-annual quota, stocks have to be in good shape before they can be applied.

Mr. Alex Salmond: These things have to be looked at with some care. In certain areas—for example, cod in the North sea—people would agree that the stock is in a serious condition; it is difficult to argue against that. There is also the fact that the North sea settlement is boxed in by arrangements that the Minister has made with Norway, but, given his knowledge of the industry, is he really going to say that he is totally satisfied that the reduction in the quota for monkfish and saithe in the west coast of Scotland will not result—if it stands—in a substantial increase in discards of some of the most valuable species? Can he give us some assurance that he is aware of the underlying questions that I am talking about? Will he look at the west coast quotas very carefully in the negotiations?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is a problem with stocks of west coast saithe, although I accept that there is the issue of by-catch and potential discards. That needs to be considered. There is also a problem in relation to monkfish, which is more of a targeted fishery. Nevertheless, such problems do arise. I assure him that I will consider them.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Norwegians made their characteristic demand for an increase in North sea mackerel. Not many of our fishermen go to Norwegian or Greenland waters, but is my hon. Friend satisfied that those few vessels will get a fair share of the fish in those northern waters?

Mr. Morley: Yes. My hon. Friend, who knows the industry well and has long experience of it, makes a good point. By and large, there was a good outcome for the United Kingdom industry from the Atlanto-Scandian discussions on stocks such as mackerel. We got a good deal on mackerel and increased access in the western waters. We improved the position in relation to haddock, and that will help those who fish in the North sea as well, so those issues were dealt with.
I think that the overall outcome was not a bad one, although some of the agreed cod figures—not in United Kingdom waters—were probably higher than they should have been. We might like to re-examine that matter.

Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morley: I shall, but only because the hon. Gentleman has fishing interests. I should like to make some progress.

Mr. Townend: Is there not some discrepancy between the figures that the scientists are working on this year and MAFF figures? For example, according to MAFF figures we have landed about 60 per cent. of our cod quota, whereas according to EU scientists almost the whole of the EU quota has already been taken. According to MAFF, we have landed about 55 per cent. of our plaice quota, whereas according to the scientists 125 per cent. of the EU quota has been caught. Therefore, either the scientists' figures are wrong or many of our European partners are enormously overfishing their quotas.

Mr. Morley: No, any difference is not due to the latter reason. Although the hon. Gentleman is right that the scientists' figures are higher than the landing figures, there are reasons for that difference, and also for the way in which the scientists make their calculations. A couple of weeks ago, when we met fishermen's leaders, we went through that issue. I should also caution the hon. Gentleman on one point: the logic is such that if actual landings are lower than those that the scientists calculate as possible, stocks may be in an even worse state than the scientists have calculated. Nevertheless, I understand the point. The issue has been addressed and, as I said, there will be an opportunity to discuss it further at the meeting.
We have to recognise the science and the fact that—for a variety of reasons, as I said—some of the stocks are in poor shape. However, we also cannot ignore the socio-economic consequences for the industry. Therefore, we have to examine the science and identify possible room for manoeuvre, while taking into account and trying to minimise effects on the industry. That is what we shall be trying to do when we meet in Brussels to discuss the issue. As I said, we have kept in close touch with the industry. This week, before we go to Brussels, there will be an opportunity to go through the issue again. I shall, of course, be listening very carefully to what the industry has to say.
There is no doubt that we have to institute recovery plans for some stocks, such as cod stocks in the Irish sea. The advice is that they are in such a bad state that only "the lowest possible" level of fishing should be allowed and a recovery programme put in place. Consequently, the Commission has proposed a 70 per cent. cut in the cod TAC and big cuts for haddock and whiting—which also feature in that mixed fishery. The cut is much bigger than the Commission would usually recommend—it tries to propose cuts of no more than 40 per cent.—but it has done so because of the potential consequences to the industry. Because of the size of the cuts, we shall have to examine the matter very closely.
I am convinced, however, that there is a need to develop and implement a recovery programme if those stocks are to have any chance of returning to sustainable

levels. We have had informal exploratory contacts with the Commission and Ireland, and both agree on the need for exceptional measures, including technical conservation and for EU commitment to early action. I am also committed to ensuring that we make progress on the matter in consultation with the industry. We are also investigating ways of establishing a regional forum in the Irish sea, bringing together all those who are interested in that fishery. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has previously advocated such a forum, and we should like to make progress in establishing one.
Devolution—to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, and now to the Northern Ireland Assembly—has been introduced in 1999, and fisheries management is one of the spheres that have been devolved. Much time and thought were given in preparing devolution of fisheries management, and we have agreed various bilateral fisheries concordats as part of the general system of bilateral concordats between the Westminster Government and the devolved Administrations. The concordats are being published and made available for people to inspect. We should like, eventually, to establish a concordat on fisheries management with the Northern Ireland Administration.
I am particularly pleased with the excellent relations that have been forged between the Ministry and the new Scottish Executive, from ministerial to official level. The best example of those relations are perhaps in the Fisheries Councils, where I have been ably assisted by the Scottish Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), as a member of the United Kingdom team.
In the same vein, I look forward to welcoming Brid Rodgers, the new Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister, who will be on board at the Council later this week. Brid Rodgers will be joining the discussions that we shall have with the industry, as there are particular issues of concern for Northern Ireland fishermen, as there are for Scottish, Welsh and English fishermen.
Last month, I had the pleasure of opening the new London headquarters of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission—NEAFC. I was honoured to be accompanied by Commissioner Fischler as well as Fisheries Ministers from Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. NEAFC is an organisation which has come of age and is exercising an increasing influence over the management of fish stocks in the international waters of the north-east Atlantic. It now regulates redfish, mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring stocks. A comprehensive new control and enforcement scheme has recently come into effect. We shall be playing a full role in the organisation.
There are two further issues I am particularly keen for NEAFC to get to grips with. The first is the expanding unregulated fishing for haddock by Russian and Icelandic vessels in the Rockall area. That risks undermining Community conservation measures to protect the stock. It is also unfair to UK and other EU fishermen who respect TAC limits when others do not. At the UK's instigation, the European Commission has served notice that that fishery must be brought under control. If it is not, we shall seek appropriate measures in NEAFC to deal with the problem.
The second issue is the management of the slow-growing, deep-water stocks, which experience elsewhere in the world has shown to be particularly
vulnerable to overfishing. Last year, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea urged that fisheries for those stocks in the north-east Atlantic should be brought under better management. The UK pressed for the issue to be raised in NEAFC. Unfortunately, a Community proposal for an immediate freeze on fishing effort on those stocks was not acceptable to certain NEAFC members. However, I hope that suitable measures will be adopted next year, once further advice has been received from ICES on management options.
New minimum landing sizes for plaice and other species come into effect in January. Several hon. Members have expressed concern about those regulations—including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who mentioned their effect on his local fishermen in Lowestoft. The changes have been introduced on the basis that reducing the minimum landing size reduces discards. There is some truth in that argument, but we believe that the proposals are not the right way forward because they send the wrong conservation message to the industry. It is better to address the issue of discards through conservation measures, perhaps by introducing bigger mesh sizes, rather than by reducing minimum landing sizes. We shall continue to oppose the proposals, because they are the wrong way forward.
Although we are dealing with an EU regulation, we have the right to apply a higher minimum landing size as a national measure in the UK. Other member states have expressed concern about the new measure and may consider doing the same. I want to discuss that with those member states, including Holland, to see whether it would be in the interests of our fishermen and our industry to apply different landing sizes from those in the European regulation.

Mr. Nicholls: I think that the Minister will at least give me credit for the fact that I have always been prepared to criticise his predecessors from my party as much as I criticise him. Will he at least assure us that there will be no question of agreeing to extra restrictions being imposed on our fishermen if they are not imposed on those from other nations who could be fishing in our area? If not, those who are practising conservation will not receive the benefit of it.

Mr. Morley: I want to apply measures in such a way that the benefit goes to our fishermen. The new limit has been agreed in the Council by a majority decision, so I cannot apply a higher measure to other member states who want to abide by the European directive, but our fishermen are telling me that they do not consider a catch of that size to be marketable. They also do not consider it good for conservation. If our industry tells us in consultation that we should apply our own rules, we must consider that. Other countries may make similar unilateral decisions. I am prepared to discuss that option with the industry.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister agree that haddock is the stock about which we are talking? As we catch about 78 per cent. of the relevant stock, the survival or otherwise of the haddock is in the

hands of our fishermen. If our fishermen say that they would like special conservation measures, does not it make sense to grant them?

Mr. Morley: A number of helpful suggestions on conservation have come from our industry. In many cases. it would be better to apply measures on an EU-wide basis—there are no two ways about it, and that is a priority. In other cases, there may well be measures that we could apply in the UK that would benefit our industry, and we should not rule that out.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I have provided the Minister with proof positive that undersized fish are landed and sold openly in Spain. Have the British Government ever tried to bring enforcement proceedings against the Spaniards for allowing the landing of undersized fish? Is that not a failure of their inspectorate?

Mr. Morley: Making sure that each member state complies with European regulations is a matter for the Commission. We have argued consistently within the Council of Ministers that control measures should be applied properly across all member states. I believe that we are making progress on the new control measures, and that genuine efforts are being made by countries such as Spain in tackling what they admit is a problem with undersized fish. They are tackling that through market controls—and, from their point of view, that is the right way to do it.
We have been developing an interchange between our inspectors and those of other countries, including Spain. Our inspectors have been to Spain, in the company of Spanish inspectors, and their inspectors have been to the UK in the company of our inspectors. Recently, I was pleased to address a conservation course run by the sea fish inspectorate, which included a Spanish and a Norwegian inspector. It was useful to have them involved in a course run by our UK administration, and it was useful to listen to their experience and ideas. We are trying to develop better national and international management and to make sure that each EU country applies the same regulations to the same standards. We take that very seriously.

Mr. Gummer: Will the Minister consider building on the decision of Baroness Thatcher, when she was in office, to support an international inspectorate in the EU, and consider enabling that inspectorate to make unannounced visits to ports? Until that happens, it cannot do the job properly. Until now, the UK Government have been least happy about that, so it seems to be entirely in our interests if the inspectorate were to have that power.

Mr. Morley: I am glad to report to the right hon. Gentleman that we have reached agreement this year. The new control measures include the right of the Commission's inspectors to make unannounced visits to any member state fishing port, accompanied by the inspectors of that member state. That is the right way forward and we support it strongly.

Mr. Andrew George: Fishermen in the south-west, and Cornwall in particular, view with dismay the proposal to reduce the minimum landing size for megrim. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)


pointed out, the Spanish market has a particular taste for immature and small fish. All this measure will do is to encourage that market, which I understand—as does the Select Committee on Agriculture, following its visit to Spain—the Spanish authorities are trying to stamp out.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that Spain and other member states are seriously addressing this issue, as it is in no one's interests to have a market in undersized, immature fish which have not had a chance to breed. Our industry does not want to catch such fish, not only for conservation reasons—which they take seriously—but for marketing reasons, such as demand and maximising prices. That is why it may be in the interests of our industry to take steps which benefit other markets and fishing patterns. As I said, we should not rule that out and I am prepared to consider it.

Mr. Steen: I am having difficulty understanding the problem. If the Minister believes that conservation and quotas are important, how can he justify the fact that sometimes, when fish of a certain species are caught, all of them have to be thrown overboard? Would not the simplest way to deal with the problem be to stop that happening, as dead fish do not need to be conserved? I mentioned sea lions earlier, but seals rushing down from the north kill live fish and eat dead ones. However, apparently they are not a conservation problem as there are plenty of fish and no quotas are needed. Why does not the Minister deal with that issue?

Mr. Morley: We cannot look for scapegoats for problems that we have inflicted on the seas. I do not suggest that seals do not have an impact, and the hon. Gentleman mentions issues that need to be examined carefully. Research programmes are currently looking into seal numbers and population dynamics, and the food chain and food web in which they are involved.
However, the problem with discards stems from the difficulty of managing a fishery where there are many species whose quotas are exhausted. How do we prevent such a fishery from being deliberately targeted? I accept that it is impossible for fishermen not to catch certain species even when their quotas are exhausted. That is where discards come in, but experienced fishermen know how to target certain species within the limits that are set. That is another reason for the management system that is in place.
I would be the first to accept that the system is not perfect. As I have made clear to the industry, I am more than willing to consider options and different ways to manage quotas, but they must be managed for conservation and sustainability. As we have discovered, it is neither simple nor easy to find alternatives.

Mr. Townend: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I want to make progress.
I shall not go into great detail about the common fisheries policy review in 2002, as there will be other opportunities to discuss what is a very large issue. Suffice it to say that we recognise that the CFP is not perfect and, indeed, has a number of serious flaws. We believe that it can be improved, but not simply by abolishing a fisheries

policy designed to manage stocks in all European waters. That must remain an important element of the policy, but we want the CFP to adopt a more rational approach with more regional management and greater flexibility.
I am glad to say that I was encouraged by the very sensible approach to CFP reform displayed, in our recent talks, by Franz Fischler, the new Fisheries Commissioner. He certainly had a good grasp of the problems involved. We are also talking informally to other countries with a common interest in CFP reform, especially in connection with the regional issue. Some of the responses have been very encouraging, which shows that progress will be possible in some areas.
Earlier, I touched on the very good report from the Agriculture Committee. I shall not go into detail about that, other than to say that we are trying to act on its recommendations.
This year, we have brought in some new technical conservation measures, one of which will provide better protection for shellfish stocks. Another measure—introduced unilaterally, but strongly supported by the UK industry—imposes limits on catches of bass in the south-west of either 5 tonnes a week or 15 tonnes a month. Incidentally, France applied those limits unilaterally long before we did. The move has been warmly welcomed by all concerned, and it is an example of how local action can be taken. I should mention also that the organisation representing fishermen in the south-west applied that measure unilaterally before we introduced it.

Mr. Andrew George: At the time of the consultation, the Minister did not propose a 15-tonne-a-month option. That has not gone down well in the south-west and around the Cornish coast, and I think that the hon. Gentleman understands why.

Mr. Morley: I do understand why, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what I am about to say. Of course, we discussed with the Scottish Parliament the impact that such a measure would have on Scottish trawlers—there is no doubt that it will severely limit their catching opportunities—but we think that it is justified because of conservation. However, we also had to consider the practical issues. A limit of 15 tonnes a month is less than 5 tonnes a week, but it would mean that a vessel taking a large haul would not have large discards. We are taking into account management and the potential impact of discards, which we are trying to minimise. We think that that is a fair point and that fishermen who understand bass, how they shoal and how a large haul can be caught, accept it. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the limit will take a lot of pressure off the stocks, and that has been welcomed.
We also hope to see progress on industrial fishing, which is a matter of great concern. I am very hopeful that, with the agreement of Denmark, we will be able to announce the first closed area for industrial fishing in the North sea. It will extend from north Northumberland to beyond Fraserburgh. The closure will eliminate the competition between fishermen and sea birds. We are using the science provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, based on the impact of sea birds. Issues such as migrating salmon and white fish stocks also play a part.
I want to pay tribute to the Danish Minister. This is a sensitive issue, but he has approached it in a spirit of co-operation and considered the scientific and conservation aspects. We are optimistic that we will get Denmark's support for the measure at this week's Council. It will be the first time that we have introduced measures to restrict industrial fishing. It is also an example of integration of environmental and fisheries management which we were called upon to carry out by the Cologne European Council. We take that issue seriously and are trying to apply some of the points.
Fisheries management and enforcement measures have also been introduced this year. When I became Minister two years ago, black fish was a serious problem. It depressed prices at fishing ports and had a devastating effect on stocks. We had to take firm action, and I make no apology for doing so because it is in the long-term interests of fishermen and the fishing industry. In January, our new designated ports system was introduced—there are now prior notification arrangements for all white fish landings made by vessels of more than 20 m.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Against the background of satellite tracking, is there still the same need for designated ports?

Mr. Morley: I shall talk about tracking in a moment. I accept that the installation of satellites gives us an opportunity to review vessels' control measures and bureaucracy and may give us an opportunity to relax those measures. As for designated ports, even if we know where vessels are, someone still needs to be able to carry out an inspection, or at least have the right to do so. I assure the hon. Lady that we understand that satellites can provide flexibility in reducing burdens and we want to consider carefully how to do that.
We have also tackled engine power and put in place measures to require the accurate declaration of engine power, which we believe to be essential to a level playing field in the United Kingdom and if measures to limit fishing are to be effective. However, as we recognise that there are practical issues relating to engine power, we have made generous transitional arrangements for fishermen who need to take action to correct deficits in their registered and licensed engine power. I believe that we can make progress on that.
As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, satellites will come in from January for vessels more than 24 m long. More than 100 vessels are linked to our monitoring system and a further 250 are in the process of linking up. The system will apply to all EU vessels of that size that fish in our waters. Norway is also voluntarily applying the system to its vessels, and I welcome that action. There is an issue of enforcement, but there are benefits for fishermen's equipment, and safety implications arise from the knowledge of where vessels are around our coast.
From January, fixed quota allocations were introduced following the suggestion of the industry. The idea is to provide greater certainty within the industry, and fishermen should no longer be under pressure to maximise their catches simply to maintain a track record for the maximisation of quota. That will bring benefits. Producer

organisations are more willing to make quota available to overcome problems in other parts of the fleet. The UK is likely to remain within its quota allocation for almost all stocks.
We shall review the operations of FQAs with the industry early in the new year, taking into account helpful recommendations from the Agriculture Committee on rules on the transfer of licences and quota, issues of ownership, and provision for new entrants, as well as the question of individual transferable quotas, which the Committee has asked us to consider.
Since 1 January, we have made it a licence condition that every UK-registered fishing vessel must demonstrate an economic link with this country. Contrary to the expectations of many, those arrangements are having a significant impact. Landings and related expenditure into the UK have increased. In some cases, additional quota has been made available, such as 50 tonnes of sole in the North sea, and we have allocated it to the inshore fishing fleet. Overall, the number of so-called quota hoppers has declined since the economic link measure was introduced.
That is a far more effective system than the factor 10 system was. The previous Government enacted the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was designed to address the quota-hopping problem. However, it addressed the problem in the wrong way, partly because it was driven by Europhobia and attitudes against other nationalities, rather than addressing the real management issues surrounding the problem. As a result of legal action, the UK is liable for damages for vessels illegally prevented from fishing after the 1988 Act's introduction. Many figures have been bandied about, but the court case has established only the right of vessels affected to claim compensation for the period during which they were prevented from fishing. It is up to the vessels to demonstrate the amount of the loss. It would be wrong, therefore, to say that an automatic sum of money should be made available for compensation.

Mr. Nick Ainger: As my hon. Friend knows, I used to represent several quota hoppers before the boundary commission intervened. On the measures introduced this year, what action will the Government take against quota hoppers that have not satisfied the criteria? Is my hon. Friend aware that several people in my former constituency believe that they can provide evidence showing that the fishing efforts being claimed by some quota hoppers were somewhat dubious?

Mr. Morley: I understand that point, and the matter must be examined carefully. It is up to the claimants to prove their claims.
On vessels that have not complied with the economic link conditions, regulations make it crystal clear that compliance is a licence condition. Any vessel that does not comply will have its licence confiscated. We have reviewed licensing, and I look forward to receiving a comprehensive report from an industry body, which will consider matters including capacity, penalty, aggregation and the sectors of the fleet that are within their multi-annual guidance programmes.
We shall also deal with the under-10 m fleet, an issue with which I have always had much sympathy. We have published a comprehensive consultation paper on the


management of the inshore fleet to try to find a strategy for the way forward. Some hon. Members will be aware that there have been some problems in the inshore fleet with this year's nephrops fishery—its expansion and the need to introduce management controls. Although we want to avoid lengthy and harmful closures in the under-10 m fleet, I cannot guarantee that that will always be possible—especially if effort continues to rise.
I am glad to see the investment that has taken place in the inshore fleet, but the problem is that many of the new boats are immensely more powerful than the boats that they have replaced; they are faster and more effective. That causes problems because we need to manage effort so as to stop it increasing. We need to consider those matters.
Many of the matters that I have mentioned involve new regulations and procedures, because much had to be done during the past two years. Many new measures had to be introduced—some of them were UK measures, to deal with particular problems, and some were European. I realise that they imposed burdens on the industry—I am sensitive to that. For that reason, we have asked officials to convene an early meeting with the industry to consider all aspects of regulation and bureaucracy, as well as issues such as the new satellites. We shall consider whether we can use that new technology to reduce some of the burdens on the industry. We take the matter seriously and we want to deal with it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: There is one more issue that the Minister might add to his list, although it crosses Departments. It should interest him that the smallest fishermen are having great difficulty with the old share fishermen's stamp system. They find that jobseeker's allowance is not available to them when dreadful weather prevents them from fishing. Those are the very people who have been pushed to the margins by the larger and faster vessels to which the Minister referred.

Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not list the share fishermen's scheme, although I am not ducking the issue. It is important. I shall look into the matter after the debate and write to him.
One of the saddest parts of this annual debate is that it is traditional to reflect the dangers faced by fishermen at sea. Sadly, so far this year seven fishermen have lost their lives—two were lost when the Donna M sank, one each from the Coleen and Gradely, and three fishermen have been lost overboard. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who were lost. In 1998, 26 fishermen were lost. I hope that the significant reduction in the number of fatalities this year will be continued in future.
Safety grants are of interest to hon. Members—many of them have spoken on that subject. Safety at sea is most important. Obviously, it is a key responsibility of fishermen themselves. I am always concerned when I read of incidents where it appears that there has been a lack of precautions. We are all aware that many incidents are caused by the crew's lack of experience—sometimes, there is a failure to observe safety needs. This year, in two cases of fatal loss, the boats involved did not carry a life raft, which would have increased the crew's chances of survival.
Other factors closely related to accidents are the way in which the vessel is operated and changes in fishing methods and in the areas fished. The industry is well aware of those matters. We want to deal with training and the full use of appropriate safety equipment with the industry.
There has been pressure to reinstate the safety grant scheme. Hon. Members will be aware that, when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited the south-west, he said that the safety grant scheme would be reinstated. We have been considering how that can be done. New structural funds will be introduced next year. There will be an opportunity to consider safety grants, bearing in mind that, under the old scheme, boats under 12 m were excluded and only certain items of equipment were covered. There are arguments over whether that was the most appropriate scheme. We also need to deal with the safety culture of the industry.
Safety is being taken seriously and we are looking into how we might reinstate a grant scheme. I emphasise that it will not be the old scheme, which was imperfect in many ways. We must consider a new safety scheme—that is what we are doing at present.
Other issues that are—

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the safety issue, I wonder whether he will take the opportunity to commend the work that has been done by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution during the 175 years of its existence. In my constituency, many fishermen serve on the local boats and instil the safety culture to which my hon. Friend referred. I am sure that all hon. Members would join me in commending the excellent work that the RNLI has done over 175 years.

Mr. Morley: I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend in supporting the work that the RNLI has done. It is true that many of its crews are from the local fishing community, and that they serve us very well.
Discussions have taken place on structural regulations. I shall not go into those in depth because they have been reported and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion, but I shall emphasise one aspect. There is sometimes a misunderstanding, especially in some newspapers, to the effect that the evil bureaucrats in Brussels are denying fishermen fish, and that we go to Brussels to argue with them to get that fish back. It is not like that at all. The discussions are about the science, taking into account the sustainability of stock and the socio-economic effects on the industry. We shall have further discussions on the subject, but I emphasise that it is not an issue of horse trading, although I know that horse trading between Fisheries Ministers has gone on in the past.

Mr. Peter Luff: Seahorse trading.

Mr. Morley: It is not exactly seahorse trading, but it has not been applied in a rational or scientific manner. The decisions that we take must be based on sound science and take into account fishermen's views. This is about management. It is also about technical conservation, as is shown by the idea of introducing no-take zones and closed areas for spawning stocks.
There is much in the Liberal Democrat amendment that is thoughtful and constructive. The Liberal Democrats are seriously addressing many of the issues, most of which we are considering. Much that is in the amendment features in the programme that we are trying to develop, and we would welcome their comments and involvement in shaping it.
I cannot say the same about the Conservative amendment; indeed, I am not even sure what it means. It is in Euro-sceptic jargon. I assume that it involves the more extreme and unachievable position of pulling out of the CFP.

Mr. James Paice: No, it does not.

Mr. Morley: Well, okay, but that is what has been said in the past, and that of course is a fantasy fisheries policy.

Mr. Paice: Read it.

Mr. Morley: I am being asked to read the amendment. I merely want to acknowledge that its wording differs subtly from what has been said in the past. For a long time, the Labour party has been advocating a policy of regional and local control. If the Conservative party has now shifted from its position that the United Kingdom should withdraw unilaterally from the CFP, it would be helpful to know that because that would be a major and very welcome shift away from a fantasy fisheries policy.
Unilateral withdrawal from the CFP is not achievable. One cannot ignore the rights of other countries that have fished our waters for generations, and in whose waters we have fished for generations. It is impossible to ignore the need for a European fisheries policy. It is also impossible to ignore the fact that the logic of taking an extreme position—such as advocating unilateral withdrawal from the CFP—is a complete withdrawal from the European Union. If that is the Conservative party's position, it is entitled to take it, but it should make that clear.
In conclusion, this will be a difficult year for negotiations on quotas. With my colleagues from the devolved Administrations, I shall go to Brussels to argue for the best deal that we can get for our fishing industry. We shall continue to address some of the industry's structural problems, for example, by considering the CFP report. We shall continue to develop the links that we have forged with the fishing industry and to involve the industry in developing sensible ideas, especially building on the ideas from the Agriculture Committee programmes on aspects of an achievable and sustainable fisheries policy. I believe that we all have a common interest in that. As parliamentarians, we have a common interest—with the industry, environmental groups and others—in ensuring that our fish stocks are managed.
I understand the implications of the proposed cuts in quotas, and I can assure the House that we shall certainly take into account the socio-economic impact on the industry when we decide how to negotiate the final quotas, bearing in mind the fact that the bottom line must be to achieve a sustainable fisheries management regime.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move, To leave out from "future" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
and believes that this can only be achieved by negotiating a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy that will devolve power to national, regional and local levels.
I join the Minister in offering the condolences of Conservative Members to the families of those who lost their lives in the fishing industry in the past year.
I am amazed that the Minister should attack our amendment.

Mr. Morley: Very mildly.

Mr. Moss: The Minister says, "Very mildly" but he still attacked it, and he thought that the Liberal Democrat amendment was marvellous. However, the Opposition are embracing a policy that the Minister espoused only three years ago. He said:
We believe that the CFP should be radically reformed to allow us far greater autonomy and national control of fishing waters within our country's limits.

Mr. Morley: Within the CFP.

Mr. Moss: The Minister did not say that. He added:
We must say that the current situation is unacceptable and that there is a better way which meets the criteria of the CFP, but which gives all member states greater national control and a better way of managing fish stocks leading to a sustainable fishing industry. If we do not meet that objective, we will have no fishing industry."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 23 July 1996; c. 25-27.]

Mr. Tim Yeo: Welcome aboard.

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point.
The proposals for total allowable catches for the next fishing year make disturbing reading. If implemented as in the first draft, the effect—to use the words of a leading figure in the industry—would be catastrophic. The spectre of crisis has, indeed, been raised before, but never before has a cut of this magnitude been proposed across so many different species' stocks and, in particular, across all commercial white fish fisheries in all sea areas. The reason for that is not so much a sudden downturn in the health of those fish stocks, but the way in which scientific advice has been presented this year. Safe biological limits have been supplemented by precautionary limits within a precautionary approach.
No one in favour of conservation and the future sustainability of fish stocks would argue against that in principle, but there is a substantial gulf between theory and practice. Insufficient thought seems to have been given to how precautionary limits might be introduced without a major disruptive impact on the fishing industry.
The proposals for total allowable catches this year suggest a revenue loss for the United Kingdom fishing fleet of about £85 million to £90 million, and that is out of a total revenue of £660 million. Frankly, that loss is a disaster in the making, and is unsustainable in the industry. Is the Minister aware of the implications? What estimates has the Ministry made of their impact—


both social and economic—on fishing communities? The Minister alluded to the fact that he would consider that, but he gave the House no figures this evening. Do the figures for the loss come as a surprise to him, or is he well prepared with counter-arguments and proposals?
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my question on the Hague preference; it will be gratefully received by the industry, which has been pressing for it. Members of the industry will have been in communication with him about that and other issues.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the major reduction in the proposed income of the United Kingdom fishing industry, but is he aware that the position in Northern Ireland will be worse? There is a proposal to reduce the income of the industry there by 30 per cent.—a dramatic cut in the income of fishermen—for next year.

Mr. Moss: I am sure that the Minister has taken note of those serious figures.
Is there no comfort that the Minister can give the fishing industry today about the stance that he will take at the Fisheries Council? Surely, a more phased approach could be proposed—more on the lines of a multi-annual approach—so that over, say, a three to five-year period the industry could move to the precautionary limits without the devastating socio-economic problems that the present proposals imply.
Nothing underlines more starkly the fact that the CFP is not working than the recently announced TACs for next year. Unlike three years ago, however, the Minister has not said a word today about real reform of the CFP, although I remember reading that it was, indeed, one of Labour's manifesto commitments.
The Minister argued today that the arrangements that have been agreed—in an exchange of letters with Jacques Santer—since the Amsterdam summit to establish a so-called economic link between the quota hoppers and the UK economy are having results. However, he did not in any way quantify those results. As we know, some observers have challenged the legality of those arrangements, and we have already seen how foreign trawler owners circumvent the regulations by landing catches in, for example, Scotland straight on to refrigerated trucks to be driven over land back to the home port. The Minister did not say whether that practice has now been stopped.
On quota hoppers, the key issue is not the number of UK nationals or boats employed but the size of the boats and their catch potential. During the time of the Amsterdam treaty, quota hoppers had only 2 per cent. of the total fleet, but they took 44 per cent. of the plaice catch and 46 per cent. of the hake catch. Estimates today point to a share of 25 per cent. of total national tonnage.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will remember that during the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, the Conservative Government were well warned about the likely consequences of the direction of their legislation. Given that, and the fact that local councillors have been warned that they can be surcharged if they make poor decisions, does the hon. Gentleman see any case for a surcharge on Conservative Prime Ministers and fishing

Ministers to make up for the tens of millions of pounds that is about to be paid to quota hoppers which could have been invested in our fishing industry?

Mr. Moss: As the hon. Gentleman knows, proper legal advice was sought at the time and taken.

Mr. Gummer: While my hon. Friend is considering surcharging, may I ask whether he would like to surcharge the Scottish National party for being against every single conservation measure that would bear on every voter whose support it hoped to get?

Mr. Moss: A good political point was made for all to hear.

Mr. Ainger: rose—

Mr. Moss: I shall press on now and take no more interventions. The Minister spoke for 55 minutes, and I should prefer to leave some time for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
The Labour Government's priorities for the fishing industry are more effective and consistent enforcement; more effective conservation of fish stocks; the achievement of a sustainable future for the fishing industry through structural and conservation measures; increased participation by fishermen in the development of policy; and an improvement in the regional dimension of the CFP. A staggering feature of that list is the omission of any mention of CFP reform.
In measuring the Government's performance against their priorities, I shall concentrate first on enforcement and satellite monitoring. The Government have declined to part-fund satellite monitoring for vessels over 24 m long, blocking any chance of access to EU grants. As we know, boats from other EU countries receive a 100 per cent. grant for that measure.
On conservation, the Government have failed to get agreement on technical proposals such as the mesh size for white fish. As the Minister agreed, they have also failed to prevent the introduction of lower minimum landing sizes for three species, which will be implemented next month.
The third priority was to achieve a sustainable future through structural changes. The key issue here is modernisation. The UK fleet is aged and becoming older by the year. For vessels between 12 and 24 m long, the average age is 25 years. As we know, European funding has been available to assist with the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels, and all our European partners, especially Spain and France, have taken full advantage of that facility to rebuild their fleets by replacing obsolete vessels with modern capacity.
All that has been denied the UK industry since 1989, initially because of the UK's failure to meet the European Community's fleet reduction targets and, more recently, because of the Treasury's unwillingness to permit participation. The Government's position is that, having paid substantial sums to take capacity out of the UK fleet through decommissioning schemes, it makes little sense to pay the industry to build new vessels. That would have an undeniable logic, were it not for the fact that the recently agreed EC structures regulation ensures that EC funding will continue to be made available to other member state fleets.
The prospect of the UK fleet continuing to become increasingly decrepit while our continental competitors modernise is, therefore, very real. Continental fleets largely fish the same grounds and sell to the same markets; clearly, they will have an economic advantage using modern vessels, as the cost per tonne of producing fish will be lower using new capacity. We should bear in mind also the fact that, with revenue generated in such a way, the door remains open for any other member state to buy UK licences and quotas. A new wave of quota-hopping, surfing on EU structural aid, is a clear possibility.
The Government's position ignores the critical factor, which is equity. For other member states to modernise while the UK fleet is denied the same access to funding can only be a recipe for winding down the UK fleet.
Also on the issue of a sustainable future for the industry, there are the unrelenting and upward costs of regulations, which are often imposed unilaterally by the UK Government. Examples include light dues, hygiene inspection, tonnage measurements, survey fees, escalating fuel prices, installation of the global marine distress system and the requirement of the new control regulation—and the list goes on. What of safety grants? I thought that the Minister was going to make a commitment to them, but he simply said that the Government would look at them afresh, as and when new structural funds appear.
The final plank of the Government's priorities relates to a regional dimension for the CFP, but nobody seems to know what that really means. Even the Minister is not clear. In his evidence to the Agriculture Committee in June, he said in answer to a question on the subject:
there are some key issues to resolve, and one of the key issues is the definition of both regional and zonal management, because it means different things to different people, different countries and different parts of the industry. So, before we even start to make much progress on this, we need to resolve that particular issue.
However, he said reassuringly:
we are giving thought to that at the present time.
Given the continuing decline of the UK industry, does not the Minister recognise the need for a great deal more urgency on that issue?
On the face of it, the policy of regional and zonal management is an attempt to restore some competency to member states—probably not individually, and more probably as groups of states—although it is still within the EU structure of the CFP. The policy is flawed on two counts. First, there is the legal position, especially of new entrants to the EU. Where will equal access to a common resource be if everything is stitched up before they join? Secondly, is such management really in British fishermen's interests?
As with any other significant change to the CFP, unanimity would be required, and that is most unlikely. Which member states would be involved in regional or zonal management? Would the Spanish, for example, be involved in the management scheme for the Irish box? On the regional management scheme, how are matters to be resolved—by some form of qualified majority voting or by unanimity? There are so many questions, but it is blindingly obvious to the UK fishing industry that the cards look stacked against it.
The cry goes up continuously from the fishing industry for a level playing field. It believes that it is seriously disadvantaged, and there is, indeed, plenty of evidence of that. How do we begin to address the inequalities of the EU system? Why is not that a Government priority?
It has long been a criticism that employment of UK subjects in the directorates-general in Brussels is well below a fair representation in relation to population. In DG XIV—the fisheries DG—only four grade A officials are UK subjects. That is a miserly 1.4 per cent. of the total. Let us compare that with 17 per cent. in DG I and 16.1 per cent. in DG VII. Does the Minister consider that there is fair and adequate representation at the heart of decision making on the CFP?
Another grievance is the lop-sided grant structure. There is no mention of the Government's intention to renegotiate a more favourable outcome for the UK in the successor to FIFG—the financial instrument of fisheries grant. In the mid-1990s, the UK was the fifth largest recipient of such aid–173 million ecu, compared to France, with 267 million ecu and Italy, with 408 million ecu. Way out in front was Spain, which received 1,163 million ecu, a staggering sum.
It has been calculated that the UK's share of supporting the upgrade of the Spanish fleet during the same period was £100 million, on top of the UK's share of the £90 million cost for the purchase of CFP rights to fish in third-party waters.
We heard not a word about such inequities from the Minister today. Does he think that it is fair? Does he believe that UK taxpayers and UK fishermen are getting value for money? Does he agree that arrangements such as the second-generation agreements, which benefit Spain particularly, constitute a fair and proper national fleet reduction, which may extend further favours to the Spanish in the future, possibly when negotiations start in earnest after 2003?
That brings me to the key date of December 2002. The Minister continues to peddle his complacent and over-confident line, first in the Select Committee debate a few weeks ago and again today. No one disputes the fact that, by midnight on 31 December 2002, under Council regulation 3760/92, member states, under qualified majority voting, must decide on any changes to the existing arrangements. If none occur, the arrangements are rolled over, with one exception—foreign vessel access to national six and 12-mile limits. A further derogation will be required to maintain those restrictions beyond December 2002. The previous one was for 20 years, and the assumption is that the proposal will be for a similar period from January 2003.
That all sounds very well, but even though a majority vote may be obtained under QMV, some states, which stand to lose out, may challenge the outcome in the European Court. The Council is, therefore, likely to seek unanimity to avoid such challenges, but that is far from guaranteed.
One of the countries likely to lose out is Spain, which posted its intentions back in 1994, when it withheld its consent to admit new members to the EU until it was given access to more fishing—in that case, 40 boats into the Irish box, which was previously restricted.

Mr. Morley: May I deal with that point? I do not intend to wind up, in order to give maximum time to Back


Benchers. On the point about QMV, that is true, but no country has expressed an interest in not renewing coastal limits. That is why I am confident. It is in the interest of our industry and that of other states. With regard to the Opposition motion, there has been a significant shift of emphasis in the Opposition's attitude to the CFP. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not their policy to withdraw unilaterally from the CFP?

Mr. Moss: We have never said that we would withdraw unilaterally from the CFP. We said that, in negotiations, we would insist on repatriation of national control. The hon. Gentleman agreed with that when he was an Opposition spokesman.
Portugal is another coastal state which, like Spain, would lose out because it has no proper coastal shelf. It is difficult to see how the blocking votes of those countries could be overcome without a change in the voting system. Such changes imply a direct assault on the acquis communautaire.
It is comforting to hear the Minister's reassurance that all will be well on the night. He has just reiterated that at present there is no sign of any state not wishing to extend the derogation, but, judging from the shenanigans over the beef issue, until countries cast their vote, it is difficult to anticipate their attitude.
Why cannot the Minister acknowledge the pitfalls that can be seen by every commentator to whom one turns for advice on the issue? Does the Minister have a deadline by which he would require agreement? If so, will he tell us what it is? Are the UK's six and 12-mile limits non-negotiable, or will he yield them up in the interests of some compromise agreement?
The CFP claims to be science-led, but regularly fails to match that claim because the data that it uses are far from solid or reliable. No one envies the administrators who have to come up with the TACs each year at about this time. To balance the many variables—including stock counts, increasing catching efficiency, estimates of illegal landings and discards, how recruitment operates, and the inter-connectivity of the food chain-must require the patience of Job and the genius of Einstein.
Given the lack of real communication between fishermen, administrators and scientists, it is no wonder that the annual announcement is considered by many to be a rather futile exercise. It also has the ability to generate anger and frustration, not just because of the disputes over fish stocks, but because fishermen are tied up in UK ports and see other EU boats fishing on the horizon and taking the so-called "limited" stocks from under their very noses.
Some years ago, illegally landed fish, or black fish, were reliably estimated to amount to up to 40 per cent. of reputed catches. The other wild card that derails a science-led CFP is discarding, which occurs most where quotas are tight, as in the North sea, and least where under-sized fish can find a ready market or where there is a lax policing system at the ports, as in some southern countries. At the Select Committee, the Minister boasted that he had solved the black fish problem, but the industry acknowledges that it is still significant.
Discarding is scandalous. No doubt many hon. Members will refer to it this evening. It has already come up in questions to the Minister. Some scientific estimates put discards at more than 30 per cent. of the fish stock.

It is not good enough for the Government to argue that discards are an inevitable consequence of a quota system, particularly as the justification for the TACs and quotas is largely the conservation of stocks and a sustainable resource.
Why is not the Minister pressing for changes that would at least start to tackle the problem? As we know, Norway bans discards. Admittedly, it monitors catches at sea, has fewer ports and has fewer species in its fisheries, but why could not the CAP introduce rules for spot monitoring? Seasonal closures could reduce discards, but the most practical way is through technical measures such as improved fishing gear and mesh sizes.
I know that the Minister has been active in that regard, and he announced earlier that the UK would regulate a larger mesh size in the near future, but that unilateral decision may again limit the ability of UK fishermen to compete.
The problem of introducing technical measures is one of harmonisation between member states, which is almost impossible, given the wide variation in fisheries and environments. That does not mean that the Government should not have a policy on technical changes, and a programme and timetable for their introduction.
It is difficult to find anyone who believes that the common fisheries policy is working. The general downward trend of the total allowable catches is testimony to that. The CFP is full of contradictions. It seeks to conserve under-age fish that have not yet reached breeding age, but brings in changes to lower minimum landing sizes. We believe—as the Minister and his party believed only a few years ago—that there must be fundamental reform of the CFP.
Conservative policy is therefore to insist on such reform to devolve power to national, regional and local levels. We will press for national or local controls to be established over our own waters, through zonal management or coastal management or in some other way. We are more than happy to discuss a way forward with the industry. These are not exclusive rights of access, and we would hope to develop sensible bilateral agreements and give recognition to the historic rights of other countries.
The Minister has a tough task ahead of him in the Council. We urge him to be robust and to fight for the interests of UK fishermen.

Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important annual debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his constructive approach, which contrasts with the spirit in which these debates used to be held. We do not hear any of the aggression and bad feeling that existed previously. That is reflected in my experience of the way in which the industry is co-operating. Now even the fish catchers speak to the merchants in my part of the world. There is a much more constructive and co-operative approach.
I do not know whom the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) consulted in the industry when he prepared his amendment to the Government motion. When representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, whom I met earlier today, saw the word "national" in the amendment, they were extremely


concerned. The federation is working across national boundaries with other European countries, their producer organisations and Governments. It does not like the thought that we shall return to the petty nationalism that identified the approach taken by the Conservative Government. That certainly worries it as it wants to see a constructive approach.
The importance of the debate is coloured by the debates that are still to take place with the other EU members. At the top of the agenda for the fishermen and fish processors in my constituency is the proposed new total allowable catches, and particularly the reduction in some of the quotas. Some of these are causing considerable concern, such as a 26 per cent. reduction in the haddock quota—although that is much better than we had feared.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to saithe and monkfish quotas. I am aware from my discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that there is especial concern about the monkfish quota for the west coast fisheries and the way in which that quota reduction has been reached. I am advised that there is virtually no scientific evidence relating to monkfish and that it is particularly difficult to calculate the age of the fish. The experience of west coast fishermen is that there are large numbers of monkfish and ample fish to meet the existing quota.
A research project is under way that was jointly sponsored by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. It is only six months into its work, with another 18 months to go. As I represent a constituency on the east coast, I am concerned that there will be a displacement of fishing activity from the west coast round to the east, where there is also a reduction in quota but where the baseline is that much higher. The removal of virtually 1,000 tonnes from a 3,000 tonnes quota will have a major impact, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine that problem in his discussions in Europe.
A major problem in the management of the industry has improved over the past few years. There have, for example, been references to multi-annual quotas. The way in which the fishing industry—processors and catchers—has accepted rather than simply moved towards the concept of a sustainable fishing industry is interesting. It is important that that is recognised. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises the constructive approach that the industry is taking.
There is concern about huge reductions or fluctuations in quota. Sometimes we see an increase in certain quotas, although not so many this year, but it is possible that there will be quite a large increase in the haddock quota next year because there is such a strong year class this year. I have received several representations recently about a multi-annual approach. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister about the need for stability in stocks, but I would argue against that being seen as an excuse for not preparing multi-annual quotas.
There needs to be some predictability in the industry. We are discussing in December quotas that will take effect in about three weeks' time. It is difficult for fish catchers, processors and the entire industry to plan ahead if the market is thrown into turmoil. It is important that we move towards a system that leads to much more predictability within the industry.
We know that huge sums are invested in the industry, both onshore and offshore. In my constituency, there is a sea change in the way in which the processing sector has developed. Traditionally, it has consisted of small, one-man businesses. They are usually one-man businesses because there are not many women at that end of the industry. However, we are going through a period of consolidation. Sectors and companies are being forced to merge because they cannot meet the competition. As for the retail side of the industry, almost two thirds of produce goes through supermarkets. The traditional method of retailing has changed. We need much more certainty and predictability in the industry. It is important that that is examined.
There are questions about the way in which decisions are taken. I think we all accept that scientific evidence is crucial. However, I think it will be accepted on both sides of the House that that evidence is not necessarily complete; certainly it is not perfect. I am concerned that scientific evidence leads to a proposal for significant reductions in quota when that goes against the experience of fishermen who report in certain areas. Saithe is a good example on the west coast. The fishermen there claim that there are abundant supplies of saithe, but the scientific evidence suggests that there should be significant reductions in TACs. It is an issue which has been discussed by the all-party fisheries group.
We are concerned that what starts as scientific advice is almost treated as the rule of law by the time that it gets to Brussels. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that he can to argue our case nationally. It worries me that officials in Brussels—I hope that this does not apply to United Kingdom officials—tend to hide behind scientific advice, with the result that practical evidence, such as that of fishermen, is not taken into account.
Both sides of the industry—catchers and processors—recognise the need to have an environmentally sustainable policy. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation recently proposed to my hon. Friend new technical measures that would result in the introduction of square mesh panels and thinner twine, which makes up the nets. If implemented, these proposals would allow more smaller fish to escape. These are constructive proposals from the industry, which I hope will be introduced, I hope also that they will help to reduce discards, which is a concern for us all.

Mr. Morley: The suggestions from the industry and the Committees were helpful. The action that the fishermen are taking has helped in our discussions to get an increase in the haddock quota. I shall be pressing these matters on the Commission in relation to the calculations that it undertakes.

Mr. Doran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is another example of the industry and Government working in co-operation. We are moving towards a real partnership.
In my constituency, the Aberdeen Fish Curers and Fish Merchants Association has developed an environmental policy, which is a radical step for the industry. A collection of small businesses sees its interests in developing and being part of a process of procuring a sustainable industry in the North sea. The future of these businesses depends on the sustainability of stocks in the North sea. They do not like a rollercoaster. Like me,


they believe that the only way forward is to develop stability in our stocks through a sustainable fishing policy, which takes into account the social and economic aspects of the industry together with the biological aspects. Scientific evidence is important, but it is only part of other elements in reaching a solution.
We need to recognise the importance of the individual fisherman and processor. Year in and year out, we ask the fishing industry and individuals within it to make sacrifices. We cannot ask fishermen to catch fewer fish if they are not to be part of the future of their own industry. That must be a key part of future policy.
It is also important to recognise that environmental groups are focusing more and more on the industry. I know that all of us who are interested in the industry have been lobbied recently by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is beginning to take an interest in it. That is important in terms of the pressure that it will apply to the industry.
I shall speak briefly about the contribution that can be made by public authorities, especially local authorities. In my city of Aberdeen, Aberdeen city council and Aberdeenshire council, the neighbouring local authority, established a fisheries summit two years ago. They brought together every group in the city that had an interest in the fishing industry, and hammered out the matters on which local authorities could help the industry to make progress. That has resulted in many improvements in the way in which issues are tackled locally. Grampian Enterprise is involved and has a better view of the effect of employment in the fishing industry on our area. However, the most significant step forward is the involvement of Aberdeen city council in responding to the major problem that the industry faces throughout Britain: the likelihood of increased water charges through the waste water directive.
Aberdeen city council has decided to construct a waste water treatment plant which the council, Grampian Enterprise and the industry will fund. It will protect my local fish processors from the huge increase in waste water charges. That is a significant local solution to a national problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister considers policy on the industry, he will take into account the important contribution that local government can make.
I conclude by making a point that has not been mentioned because it is not strictly relevant to today's debate. We have heard much recently about the beef war between Britain and France, and the Conservative party's call for a trade war. My local fishing industry depends greatly on our exports, especially to France but also to Spain. My office is opposite the Aberdeen fish market. Every day, I can see from my office the lorries leaving for France. My fishing industry would be devastated by a war with France over beef. I hope that the Government will never countenance it.

Sir Edward Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief speech. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that all too little time has been allocated for debate on such an important subject.
I was born by the sea, and I lived by the sea for more than 50 years. I swam and fished in the sea when I was a kid; later, I won the national record for the amount of cod

caught in a single day–146 lbs 13 oz. Therefore, I have some experience of the matters that we are discussing. I have travelled all over the world, and sailed and raced in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific. Wherever I have travelled, I have talked to fishermen, who have been immensely helpful to us at times. I understand their views and share their anxieties.
I want to look back to some original foundations. We can consider modern problems, but it is also important to look back to 1963 and 1964. Some people claim that the European Community created its fisheries policy in 1963 at the last moment to try to prevent us from becoming a member and to make matters as difficult as it could for us. That is a complete falsehood. The Community's fisheries policy was first discussed by the French in 1963, and they continued to discuss it, to try to resolve problems and create a policy until 1969. A general review of Community policy, including fisheries policy, then took place and it was decided to try to settle the policy by spring 1970. The Community did not succeed in that, and the policy was finally settled in December 1970. We took part in the discussions that followed, and the Community knew our position perfectly well.
There is an answer to those who claim that we sold out to the Community or to the French: we got the decision for which we asked. We asked for the 12-mile arrangement—six miles plus six—and to stick to the arrangements that had existed since the relevant legislation came into force.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way because there is no time to do so.
We got the decision that we wanted at the time. It was to last for 10 years, and it was then renewed for 20 years. It will be discussed and possibly re-created in 2002. That policy, which suited us, has remained in operation.
I want to consider deep-sea fishing. At the time, there was a great difference between our deep-sea fishermen and other fishermen. That point is often overlooked nowadays. The coastal fishermen were in the minority. It is also forgotten that when the Conservative Government came to office in 1970, we were at war with Iceland over deep-sea fishing. We had to send warships to protect our fishermen. We got a settlement on political grounds, which hardly changed our landing of fish—I do not know whether the Icelanders ever realised that. However, for four years after that, we were still in the 900,000 series. We did not lose out over that, but we lost our deep-sea fishing industry.
I tried to resolve that by asking the Minister of Agriculture to organise a search for other parts of the world that we could recommend to our deep-sea fishermen. We quickly discovered that the coast of Africa was useless because it was largely monopolised by the Russians. We went to the coast off South America, where excellent opportunities were found. They were put to our fishing organisations. It was reported that, when landed, the deep-sea fish looked awful but tasted delicious. We passed around the information but it was never used, and very few fishermen fish off the coast of Latin America. The change in the balance happened then, and it affected the matters that we have discussed today and in the past.
The arrangements that exist today were not accepted in my time because they were not necessary, but Mrs. Thatcher accepted them when she was Prime
Minister and said that they were necessary. I agreed with her; they were the right measures. We must protect the industry by limiting catches—there can be no doubt about it. Unless one is prepared to face up to that, we shall get nowhere. That is why the Government are right—even if they have changed their minds—to pursue the policy thoroughly. I hoped that my party would agree with that. However, the Conservative amendment leads one to conclude that the party wants us to leave the Community. If we accepted the amendment, we would demand to be outside any Community fishing policy. The Community would not accept that, not for a moment.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
The Community would not accept that for a moment and we would be forced to give way or get out. I want my fellow Members to realise that. We have to be realistic: that is the situation, so there is no point in tabling such amendments because they are entirely unrealistic and completely ineffective.
We are in a situation in which it is absolutely right to have limits, and if hon. Members look at our figures they will see that we have done very well—much better than most. I am not complaining about that in the least—it has been achieved by the proper means—but, looking to the future, we have to appreciate the situation fully, reach agreements and accept and operate them. If the fishermen have that explained to them, they will understand it perfectly well. I have talked to them on many occasions, and whenever I send them a letter explaining something I never receive a counter-answer saying, "Oh, we can't accept that" or "You're wrong." It is obvious to me that when they analyse an issue they recognise the real facts and the action required to deal with them. That is why I hope that we shall give them encouragement from the House today.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: In moving the motion, the Minister made a broad sweep of the canvas. In the time that will fairly be allocated to me, however, it will not be possible to deal with many of those issues and I shall therefore concentrate on one or two matters specific to the Northern Ireland fishing industry. It would be an understatement to say that our fishermen are greatly disturbed and alarmed by the total allowable catches and quotas proposed for 2000 for most of the main marketable Irish sea species. Such proposals are totally unacceptable to them and will place an enormous economic burden on them and their families, on the onshore industries that depend on them and on the economies of the fishing villages in my constituency—Kilkeel and Ardglassas—as well that of Portavogie, in the constituency of Strangford.
The cuts are of a most dramatic dimension. The European Commission has proposed 69.1 per cent. reduction in the TAC of Irish sea cod and, if that is not bad enough, 40 per cent. reductions for Irish sea whiting, haddock and herring. How can our industry survive such cuts made in one fell swoop? It is not possible. On top of that, there is a proposed reduction from 23,000 tonnes to 17,200 tonnes for nephrops, which is our main crop. That will immediately wipe out in that sector alone £3 million of gross takings for those small communities.
It is argued that many of the reductions are based on scientific facts, but most of us could be forgiven for questioning some of the bases on which these scientists make their recommendations. I shall give the House a brief example. There were substantial stocks and catches of all those species for the first six months of 1999, but then the fish disappeared for no apparent reason. The scientists said that the temperature of the inner Irish sea had increased by 2 per cent. and the stocks would come back in the autumn when the temperature returned to its normal seasonal average, but it did not do so. The migratory habits of the fish had changed and their dispersal was such that the trawlers could not make economic sorties on the shoals. That, however, does not mean that the fish are not there; they have simply moved across the demarcation lines that have been so conveniently drawn on the map. I suspect that these drastic and unacceptable reductions in respect of all those main species are based on not the scientific fact of the absence of fish, but the evidence of a lack of catches, and that is an entirely different concept.
I must say to the Minister that there is no doubt whatever that the Northern Ireland fishing fleet, the industry and the onshore jobs that come from it will be decimated if the proposals are carried. I am sure that he is not content with the figures. I hope that they are not a fait accompli and that the Council at its meetings on December 16 and 17–wherever they are held, be it London, Brussels or anywhere else—will reject them for their lack of scientific basis and because the proposals will decimate the north Irish fishing industry.
In 1991 and 1992, the Commission recognised the uniqueness of the ecosystem that is particular to the Irish sea, which is virtually an enclosed seaway, and that the special circumstances and needs of the fishing industry had to be addressed. That has never been done, but I ask the Minister to look back to that debate to see where there is reason, justice and logic for allowing him to convince his counterparts in Europe that the cuts are not acceptable. He has rightly mentioned their socio-economic consequences and the motion itself says that
"the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised."
I ask for that regional difference to be fully recognised and for the drastic and unacceptable cuts in TACs to be eliminated. The TACs should revert to what they were, at least for 1999, to provide a sustainable industry.
In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) briefly touched on the Hague preference and its invocation by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Surely, under the new political dispensation—which I welcome and to which the Minister has referred—and, in particular, in the North-South Ministerial Council, special attention could be given to that particular problem to ameliorate the adverse effects of the Hague preference where it is called upon by the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, that should also be a matter for the proposed British-Irish Council, but such consideration cannot be given in this round of talks. Our Agriculture and Fisheries Minister will not have a place at the table with the Minister in the negotiations, I assume, so we depend totally on him and his Department delivering on this problem.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Curry: rose—

Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that the Irish Minister, along with the


Scottish Minister, will be with me at every stage of the discussions and fully involved.

Mr. John D. Taylor: rose—

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the House that the hon. Member for South Down was allowing the Minister to intervene?

Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. McGrady: Yes.

Mr. Taylor: Was the hon. Gentleman referring to the presence of the new Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister or that of the Irish Minister? I think that the Minister's reply referred to the Irish Minister, but we want to know about the Northern Ireland Minister.

Mr. McGrady: I am not sure that I can clarify an answer that was not given by me. The Minister referred to Brid Rodgers, the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries in the new devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. I am delighted to have the assurance that she and her officials will be with the Under-Secretary at the table, and will share responsibility for delivering a much better deal for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.
In view of the time constraints, I shall not pursue any other issue except a matter that has not been mentioned but is particularly important to the fishermen of Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a new scheme for small businesses whereby, in Northern Ireland, as a sort of peace dividend, there would be 100 per cent. capital allowance grant on capital expenditure. Up until the past two or three days, it was anticipated that such a facility would be extended to capital expenditure in the fishing industry. Before leaving home this morning, I was informed that the fishing industry is excluded from the 100 per cent. relief that was given to small businesses in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will be as surprised as I am by that decision, and will think it unjust, inequitable and unfair. I hope that he will take the matter up with his ministerial colleague for the purpose of clarification.
I cannot emphasise enough the fact that the 70 and 40 per cent. cuts across the main species will decimate the Northern Irish fishing industry. The Minister must not allow those figures to be on the paper at the end of his negotiations.

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'in taking note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 5th December 1999, recalls that the previous Government added to the burden on UK fishing communities and failed to take any decisive action to protect British fishing interests in 18 years; believes that the Government should establish a coherent joined-up vision of where the UK wants the fishing industry to be in the medium and long term; recommends that the Government both itself and in its negotiations with European and other fishing nations seeks: to develop arrangements which significantly improve the cooperative

relationship between fishermen and scientists, to avoid the last-minute annual total allowable catch and quota-setting process which does much to damage this relationship and the ability of the industry to plan ahead, to bring forward proposals to regularise and manage the trading of track records and fishing licences, to establish a decentralised system based on regional fisheries management whilst seeking to reduce the need for discards and engage fishermen in management decisions, to ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement across the European Union, to develop a pan-European policy to encourage low-impact fishing methods, and to reinstate a system of fishing safety grants.'.
There is little time left to discuss this substantial amendment to the Government's motion, the spirit of which the Liberal Democrats agree with, although we want to beef it up along these lines. I have some sympathy with the Minister because of the great difficulty that he is in, especially over the scientific advice. I am sure that he would not wish this on himself, and it puts him in a difficult position in the negotiations that he faces later this week in Brussels. However, as a member of an Opposition party, I shall exploit his discomfort whenever appropriate, but in a responsible way.
The Minister accepts, as I do, that some stocks are in a serious state of decline, and robust and responsible action must be taken. The industry wants a medium-term vision, as described by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), with a multi-annual quota. That would make it much easier for the industry to swallow what I think will be an extremely bitter pill this year.
As for Conservative opposition, I was waiting in anticipation to see whether there would be a significant change in Conservative party policy with the change of its spokesperson. It is unclear, and the jury is still out on the Conservative party's position.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: No. I would enjoy an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but, in view of the time constraints, I have to move on.
The Conservative amendment is curious, because, in the Scottish Parliament last week, the Conservatives tabled an amendment advocating the reform of the common fisheries policy that devolves powers to regional and zonal levels. There was no mention of national levels. That is a curious and perplexing amendment, and I cannot help but note that the Conservatives have criticised others for saying one thing in one place and another thing somewhere else, because that is what they are doing now with their amendments in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.

Mr. Moss: I have a news release from the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) who visited the Looe fishermen. It says that if the Liberal Democrats do not get their way, they
would have to withdraw Britain from the Common Fisheries policy.
In a letter, Mr. Robin Teverson MEP says that the Liberal Democrats would advocate
actual changes to the Treaty of Corfu
and other treaties.

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that, in all Opposition parties, there are some who stray—he made that point earlier—and make irresponsible calls for pulling out of the CFP and repatriation. I speak on behalf of the


Liberal Democrat party in Parliament. I could appeal to irresponsible and populist opposition and call for a unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, but I am making it absolutely clear that that is not our view. The Liberal Democrats provide responsible opposition. We want radical reform of the common fisheries policy, but not withdrawal from it, as that is unrealistic and not on the agenda.
The background papers to today's debate refer to progress towards meeting targets under the multi-annual guidance programme—ter has not been dealt with in the debate—ACs and quotas for next year. As other hon. Members have said, here we go again. What other industry would tolerate being managed in such a way that it has to limp on year after year, never being sure where it is going? That is a product of either poor circumstances or poor policy management.
Politicians who engage in the fishing industry and anyone who has responsibility for fishing policy will know that fishing is a no-go, no-win area: it is a poisoned chalice, as I have told the Minister before. Last week, the Minister was harangued and verbally roughed up in the south-west. Given the views expressed by fishermen in that area, he may have thought that not being given worse treatment was tantamount to a ringing endorsement. The fishing issue is not for politicians of a nervous disposition. This issue either results in Ministers being harangued and verbally roughed up, or is an opportunity for certain people to get on their high horse about European constitutional issues and to use fishermen as front-line troops in their own xenophobic war. The fishing industry requires responsible and serious leadership, not such an irresponsible approach.
If we wanted to contrive a set of circumstances in which to produce really bad policy, we could not do much better than start here. The relationship between politicians and fishermen has not been good for some time. That relationship needs to be worked on, as does that between fishermen and scientists, which, despite some improvements, is still not what it should be.
The fishing industry faces this 11th hour brinkmanship: this annual short-term, short-sighted approach to the management of fishing policy in which the crucial issue of the quota for the following year is decided only a few weeks before the end of the year. We need a coherent, joined-up strategy to take the industry forward. We need a coherent policy on quota management and trade, technical measures, equality of monitoring and enforcement across Europe and policies to improve the relationship between scientists and fishermen.
Many hon. Members have already made the point that the quota settlement proposed for next year would take quotas for all stocks to their lowest levels for a considerable time. The industry is also facing increased fuel costs, compliance costs and satellite monitoring costs, and the introduction of a global maritime distress system and tonnage proposals. The quota cuts could take £88.5 million from an industry with a total revenue of £660 million.
The scientific base is in the form of advice, not instruction. Some assessments of stock, such as west of Scotland monkfish, do not have an adequate scientific base. The industry has argued to that effect, and I think that it has sound evidence.
Fishermen feel that no proper account is taken of effort limitations, or of decommissioning controls, when quotas are set in the beam trawler sector. As others have pointed out, advice is sometimes out of kilter with experience—for example, in the case of the wholesale dumping of saithe in Scotland. This is no way in which to plan for such an important industry. The industry needs meaningful mid-term blueprints, and it needs discussions early in the year between fishermen and scientists.
I heard the wise words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and I am aware of his experience. I have to say that, for fishermen in Cornish and south-west waters, the original quota settlement on which relative stability is now based was not satisfactory. It was clearly not good enough in places like area VII, where the French have 75 per cent. of the cod quota, while local fishermen have only 15 per cent.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. George: I cannot possibly do so, given the amount of time that remains.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Hague preference. The Minister said that he would consider invoking it in Scotland, and I hope that he will extend that to include hake stocks in western waters.
I think that the Minister accepted our arguments about low-impact fishing, which is mentioned in our amendment, but I do not think that his answer to me about bass was adequate. Fishermen in Cornish waters, and in the south-west, are concerned about the way in which the "15 tonnes per month" decision was made. It was not part of the original consultation. The Minister will appreciate that the fishermen are not happy, and I ask him to keep the matter under close review.
Safety is an important and tragic issue. Today, we learned of another tragedy in Grimsby, involving a Brixham trawler, and in October, we lost another of my constituents off the coast of the Isles of Scilly. Following the announcement of an end to fishing safety grants in May, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister—having gone round the mulberry bush of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Deputy Prime Minister—is now reconsidering their reintroduction.
Concern has been expressed about the safety of beam trawlers following the investigation of the loss of the Margaretha Maria, a trawler from my constituency, in November 1997, with the loss of four lives. The findings of the marine accidents investigation branch make it clear that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's own stability tests may not be adequate. I am not saying that all beam trawlers are fundamentally unstable—I have been out on them, and they have a good track record—but the MCA has been criticised by the MAIB. It is important for the tests to be improved, and for our fishermen to know that they are adequate. That means carrying out the tests in dynamic, rather than static conditions.
I have spoken briefly on what is a substantial amendment. It is important to reinstate fishing safety grants, to encourage low-impact fishing, to establish regional forums—the Minister has referred to that in regard to the Irish sea—to encourage, through the reformed common fisheries policy, an increased regional


dimension, and to bring about a medium-term joined-up policy based on a clear vision and the introduction of multi-annual quotas for future years.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is a long time since I spoke in a fisheries debate. Although I shall vote with the Government, I can tell the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that I have some sympathy with his amendment. I think that he and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) were absolutely right to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that our fishermen were being asked yet again to swallow a bitter pill because of what I consider to be a lousy common fisheries policy.
I must tell the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), with great respect, that I, too, have some experience of the industry, but my experience is a little different from his. I am the son of a fisherman and a fishhouse lass. When the right hon. Gentleman and his Administration were mishandling the fisheries dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland—popularly known as the cod war-three of my brothers were fishing on trawlers off the Icelandic coast and facing the dangers of wire cutting. I can tell him from personal experience—because I was up there as well—that wire cutting was very dangerous for the lads who were on the decks of those trawlers.
Coming, as I do, from a fishing community, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman something else, again with great respect. Many members of our fishing communities feel that his Administration sold the pass when they took us into the European Economic Community, because the common fisheries policy and, more important, our fishing industry were used as a bargaining counter. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's Administration and his officials were too ready to listen to the representatives of the British Trawler Federation, which represented only the trawler companies on the Humber and, to a lesser extent, in Aberdeen.
The interests of the share fishermen, in communities throughout the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland, the Shetland Islands and in Cornwall, for instance—were disregarded in the right hon. Gentleman's honourable drive to take us into what was then the EEC. Since those days, my brothers have been on the dole for many years, together with many friends and many other relations, and I blame his Government for that.
As one who was born into a fishing community, and has stayed with the industry all his life, I can tell the House that successive Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, have let our fishermen down. In the 1960s and 1970s, they behaved with appalling arrogance to the small nation of Iceland when we were involved in that fisheries dispute. Our fishermen are still suffering the aftermath—the unintended consequences—of British arrogance towards a nation that was wholly dependent on the catching and processing of fish for the livelihood of its communities, from Akureyri in the north to the Vestmannaeyjar Islands in the south. A deal could have been done; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman struck a deal with the Icelanders. All that led to the common fisheries policy. Our communities still suffer because the right hon. Gentleman's Administration sold the pass.
As I said earlier, we must be fair-minded: Labour Administrations have not done much better by our fishing industry. That was always the view of my late mother,

who first worked "on the herring" when she was 13. She did not have much regard for Labour or Conservative Administrations; she lost a brother and a brother-in-law at sea. We, too, have some experience of the industry, perhaps more than the right hon. Gentleman.
Respect has been paid to the fishermen. A character in Scott's novel "The Antiquary" says—my Scottish friends will forgive me for the accent; my grandmother came from Aberdeen, but I did not—"It's not fish you're buying, but men's lives." That is precisely the case. I hate the fact that fishermen go out in bad weather to fish. I was brought up in a community where, if the ice room was empty or half empty, skippers would shoot the gear in very bad weather, often resulting in deck hands being knocked overboard, as happened to two school friends of mine, Harry and Terry Williams.
My hon. Friend the Minister should listen to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said. If a share fisherman cannot fish because of heavy weather, he should not be denied a legitimate claim for jobseeker's allowance. I hope that a Labour Government will do something about that. I do not want men fishing, shooting the gear and having to work on deck in anything over a force 6.
If I push other hon. Members out of the debate, they will have to forgive me because it is a long time since I have spoken on the issue and I do not think that we sufficiently discuss the safety concerns of our fishermen. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned safety grants, as did the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—it is a bit different from our usual exchanges over Northern Ireland, but I welcome him to his post. Can safety grants be used to purchase survival suits?
I shall ask my hon. Friend a question. He will not be able to answer it tonight, but I would welcome a letter, with a copy put in the Library. What proportion of our fishing vessels carries survival suits for their crew members? If we are to talk about safety grants, as the Minister did, that issue will be critical. I shall give an example. A friend's trawler went down off St. Kildare a few years ago—in the month of February—with a crew of 27. The men who were on watch had time to put on their survival suits. The lads who were down below went over the side in their underwear or pyjamas. Some of the men with survival suits survived for almost four hours in freezing waters—the lads who had to go over the side in their simmits and drawers were dead literally within minutes. My view is—and the fishermen's organisations know it—that no fishing vessel should be allowed out to sea without survival suits for all crew members. My hon. Friend needs to look at that in terms of safety grants.
I think that I am right in saying that no French trawler whose overall length is 15 m or more can leave port without survival suits. The Minister and his ministerial colleagues have been informed by Brussels that survival suits should be carried. I should like him to examine the matter.
Another question comes to mind in relation to our fishermen, who follow that most hazardous of occupations. When will financial compensation be paid to former trawler company employees? Does my hon. Friend have an answer for me tonight? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and others, including the Minister himself, have pursued that issue.
Men who were put out of work saw their employers given money. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave a lot of money to Humber trawler owners by way of compensation, but the crews did not get a penny. That injustice-many of the crews are in their 60s and 70s—should be remedied.
The motion refers—my hon. Friend mentioned it—to regional management. The Opposition amendment talks about national management. That is nonsense, but I should like to know what the Government's definition of regional management is. I wrote a paper on it for the Scottish government yearbook of 1975; my hon. Friend the Minister might like to read it.
My view is that with regional management comes local preference. It is a difficult issue because it means giving local fishermen preference over nomadic fishermen—not just from other countries, but from the same country; from other parts of Scotland. There will be conflicts among the nation's fishermen—for example, those in Ullapool and those whom the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) represents—but, if we are to talk about regional management, we will have to talk about protecting local fishing communities against the depredations of big trawler operators—against beam trawlers. I would ban beam trawling if I had my way. We have to protect those communities, many of which are far removed from London; they are far removed even from Edinburgh.
That is the problem with the review of the common fisheries policy in 2002, which my hon. Friend mentioned. What will we do about regional management? Will we give autonomy to local fisheries committees of one sort or another? Looking at Brussels, I do not think that we have a cat in hell's chance of having regional management that protects the local indigenous industry from nomadic fishermen, who are often not concerned about preserving the stock that they are dipping into and then disappearing over the horizon.
Another question arises from the review of the common fisheries policy. Have applicant countries that are seeking to join the European Union—obviously, I am talking about the maritime nations—been told that they will play no part in the CFP review? Let us not forget the Polish fleet.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From memory, we were promised full-day fishing debate and then the Government promised a half-day fishing debate without a ministerial statement. Is there anything—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter that has nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Salmond: That is the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you do anything from the Chair to avoid the farce of an annual fishing debate in which only seven Members get to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Dr. Godman: I am about to finish, anyway—[Laughter.] I thought that I heard someone shout, "Daytripper" to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was not me,

although he might be seen as a daytripper to this place. I would have thought that this place is as important to him and to his hon. Friends as the Scottish Parliament.
The safety of our fishermen should be paramount, and the Minister and his colleagues should not ever forget that. I say that against the background of a lousy common fisheries policy.
Amendment proposed: To leave out from "House" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`in taking note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 5th December 1999, recalls that the previous Government added to the burden on UK fishing communities and failed to take any decisive action to protect British fishing interests in 18 years: believes that the Government should establish a coherent joined-up vision of where the UK wants the fishing industry to be in the medium and long term; recommends that the Government both itself and in its negotiations with European and other fishing nations seeks: to develop arrangements which significantly improve the cooperative relationship between fishermen and scientists, to avoid the last-minute annual total allowable catch and quota-setting process which does much to damage this relationship and the ability of the industry to plan ahead, to bring forward proposals to regularise and manage the trading of track records and fishing licences, to establish a decentralised system based on regional fisheries management whilst seeking to reduce the need for discards and engage fishermen in management decisions, to ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement across the European Union, to develop a pan-European policy to encourage low-impact fishing methods, and to reinstate a system of fishing safety grants:.—[Mr. Andrew George.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 320.

Division No. 17]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Jackie
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Beith, Rt Hon A J
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burnett, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Moore, Michael


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Oaten, Mark


(NE Fife)
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Salmond, Alex


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Dafis, Cynog
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sir Robert Smith and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Bob Russell.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bames, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Alexander, Douglas
Beard, Nigel


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe


Austin, John
Bermingham, Gerald






Betts, Clive
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Burgon, Colin 
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caplin, Ivor
Godsiff, Roger


Casale, Roger
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, lain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
IIIsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
(welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) 
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


(B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Denham, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dobbin, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Edwards, Huw 
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Efford, Clive
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Laxton, Bob


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Etherington, Bill
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen





Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon John (Hamilton N)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Ruane, Chris


(Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McGrady, Eddie
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


Mclsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona 
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew(Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela(Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Steward, Ian (Eccles)


Milbum, Rt Hon Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis 
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Sutcliffe, Gerry


(B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mountford, Kali
(Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mudie, George
Temple—Morris, peter


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


Norris, Dan
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)


O'Neill, Martin 
Turner, Neil(Wigan)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Derek(Halton)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)


Pendry, Tom
Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Walley, Ms Joan


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Claire


Plaskitt, James
Wareing, Robert N


Pollard, Kerry
Watts, David


Pond, Chris
White, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)
(Swansea W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Mrs Betty(Conwy)


Prosser, Gwyn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Winterton Ms Rosie (Donzcaster C)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wise, Audrey


Quinn, Lawrie
Wood, Mike


Radice, Rt Hon Giles



Rammell, Bill



Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)







Woolas, Phil
Wyatt, Derek


Worthington, Tony



Wray, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to Order [this day].

Amendment proposed: To leave out from "future" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"and believes that this can only be achieved by negotiating a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy that will devolve power to national, regional and local levels."—[Mr. Moss.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 347.

Division No. 18]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Hayes, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Horam, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Body, Sir Richard
Key, Robert


Boswell, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brady, Graham
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bums, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Madel, Sir David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Malins, Humfrey


& Howden)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fallon, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Paterson, Owen


Fraser, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gamier, Edward
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Greenway, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ruffley, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard





Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Viggers, Peter


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Walter, Robert


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles


Spring, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townend, John



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr Lynda


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbndge)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coaker, Vemon


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Cooper, Yvette


Banks, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bames, Harry
Corston, Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cotter, Brian


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Crausby, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benton, Joe
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bermingham, Gerald
Dafis, Cynog


Betts, Clive
Dalyell, Tam


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Borrow, David
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Bradshaw, Ben
(B'ham Hodge H)


Brake, Tom
Dawson, Hilton


Brand, Dr Peter
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Burden, Richard
Doran, Frank


Burgon, Colin
Dowd, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drew, David


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Cable, Dr Vincent
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


(NE Fife)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff


Caplin, Ivor
Etherington, Bill


Casale, Roger
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Caton, Martin
Feam, Ronnie


Cawsey, Ian
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fisher, Mark


Chidgey, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clapham, Michael
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Follett, Barbara






Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Don (Bath)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foulkes, George
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Livingstone, Ken


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce(Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Gibson, Dr Ian
(Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McFall, John


Godsiff, Roger
McGrady, Eddie


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mclsaac, Shona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWilliam, John


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harvey, Nick
Mallaber, Judy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hood, Jimmy
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moore, Michael


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Humble, Mrs Joan
(B'ham Yardley)


Hurst, Alan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Oaten, Mark


(Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Ms Jenny
Olner, Bill


(Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pickthall, Colin


Keetch, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Pollard, Kerry


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kirkwood, Archy
Prosser, Gwyn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Quinn, Lawrie





Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Stunell, Andrew


Rammell, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Raynsford, Nick
(Dewsbury)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rendel, David
Temple—Morris, Peter


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Todd, Mark


Rooney, Terry
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Roy, Frank
Touhig, Don


Ruane, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salmond, Alex
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tynan, Bill


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sawford, Phil
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve


Short, Rt Hon Clare
White, Brian


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Singh, Marsha
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
(Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Stevenson, George
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wray, James


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard
Tellers for the Noes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Greg Pope and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th December 1999, relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2000 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that many fish stocks remain in poor shape and need to be rebuilt for the future; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen consistent with the sustainable management of stocks, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),

That the Order of the House of 30th November relating to the meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee on Tuesday 14th December shall have effect with the substitution of the words 'half past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock' for the words `half past Ten o'clock'—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to raise the issue of Cyprus. I chair the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in this Parliament, a group made up of Members from all of the main parties in this House.
Next year will be the 26th year in which the Republic of Cyprus has been a divided island, occupied by troops of a foreign power—namely, Turkey. Cyprus is a Commonwealth country, and the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus. This in itself shows to many people the inability of many countries, including the UK, to resolve this long-running tragedy.
Cyprus is a small and beautiful country. For more than 25 years, nearly one third of the territory of the island of Cyprus has been occupied. It is the only country in Europe that is divided. The capital city, Nicosia, is divided by a wall, barbed wire and troop emplacements. All who walk along the dividing line have the same thought—why, after 25 years, is this island still divided? How do we allow a Commonwealth country to suffer as, sadly, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots suffer from this divide?
Since 1974, there have been countless meetings in Cyprus, London and the United States, and many meetings of the United Nations Security Council. Resolutions have been passed that clearly outline the views of the United Nations on what should be the basis for a settlement to this long-running tragedy.
Many promises have been made. One has only to think of the promise made many years ago for the return of Famagusta—a town that is still deserted some 25 years after the invasion. Once, it was one of the most beautiful towns in Cyprus. Yet the promise made by Mr. Denktas, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, to return that town has never been honoured, any more than the resolutions passed by the United Nations have been honoured.
Report after report has stated clearly that, under successive presidents of the Republic of Cyprus since the invasion, there has always been a willingness to enter into meaningful talks. Regrettably, however, that has always been refused by Mr. Denktas and so, sadly, we have got nowhere.
Mr. Denktas, fully supported by Turkey and the Turkish army, plays by his own rules of non-co-operation. Thousands of Turkish settlers—no one knows the correct number—have come from mainland Turkey to live in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. At the same time, thousands of Turkish Cypriots have left the country.
In a debate such as this, it is interesting to highlight the views of the countries of the world. After some 25 years, the only country that recognises the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus is Turkey. No other country in the world does so.
I referred to the many meetings held over the past 25 years to try and find a settlement. At the G7 meeting at Cologne earlier this year, the heads of Government issued a statement calling for the President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Clerides, and Mr. Denktas

to meet to discuss the grounds for a settlement. I and many other hon. Members warmly welcome that commitment by the G7 countries.
The group that I chair has always made it clear that we want a settlement in which the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots will be just as important as those of Greek Cypriots. Guarantees to that effect should be written into any such settlement.
The talks called for by the G7 nations have started. Discussion is, sadly, slow, but the deadlock is of long standing, so we must accept that the talks will take a long time and be difficult. However, the House, the United Nations and other countries involved in the Cyprus problem must be clear that the settlement that we hope to achieve must be based on the resolutions passed by the UN. Those resolutions require that Cyprus must remain a single sovereignty, that there must be total withdrawal of all Turkish troops, and that all refugees who so wish must have the right to return to their homes. The resolutions also call for the final resolution of the fate of the missing people, and state that there can be no recognition for a separate Turkish state in any part of the island of Cyprus.
I have referred to the repeated willingness of the President of the Republic of Cyprus to enter into meaningful talks on any aspect of a settlement. Cyprus is now a candidate for membership of the European Union, and it has every right to be considered. Its economy is far stronger than that of many of the other applicant countries now under consideration.
President Clerides has called repeatedly on Mr. Denktas to join in the discussions about the EU membership application. Regrettably, Mr. Denktas has refused on every occasion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, will fully support Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. I hope, too, that they will make it clear to Mr. Denktas and the Turkish Government that they have no veto over Cyprus's application.
The events of the past few days have altered considerably the issues surrounding a settlement in Cyprus. At the weekend, the Helsinki conference of European Union heads of Government decided to invite Turkey to attend meetings to discuss its possible EU membership. The House knows how much Turkey wants that to happen, and I have no doubt that, in time, Turkey will have a role in the EU. However, I hope that the Government will be at the forefront of those telling Turkey what is expected of it.
European Union membership sets very clear rules. Countries must respect human rights and have no political prisoners. Above all, however, their troops should not divide and occupy another European country.
I understand that the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, attended the European Union meeting in Helsinki. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not forget that it was the same Mr. Ecevit who said not so long ago that there was no Cyprus problem, and that
"the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus solved the issue."
I hope that the leaders of the European Union will leave Mr. Ecevit in no doubt that membership of the European Union will bring responsibilities and clear obligations to resolve disputes and conflicts. No dispute requires resolution more than that over Cyprus.
We in the United Kingdom can never say, "It's sad, we hope the problem will be resolved, but it isn't our responsibility." It certainly is our responsibility. As I said, Cyprus is a Commonwealth country, and the United Kingdom is one of its guarantor powers. I hope that, in the coming weeks, we will be in the forefront of those countries supporting the Republic of Cyprus and working towards a settlement there. Such a settlement will bring benefits to the country and its people, be they Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriots.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I explain to the House that a number of Back Benchers wish to speak and that brief contributions would therefore be appreciated.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I shall certainly adhere to your request for brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish to raise the subject of policing levels in Hampshire. My contribution arises from my experience as a local Member of Parliament, and from recent headlines in the Chandler's Ford and Romsey newspapers. Examples of those headlines include "Safety Fears as Police Shortages Affect Local Residents", "Bobbies Cut as Shops Face Vandal Problem", and "Precinct Folk Frightened". Another story, headed "Police Cuts Row", had a sub-headline describing how angry traders feared more vandalism if police officers were transferred elsewhere in the district.
Many hon. Members will be familiar with such headlines in their local press. In my constituency, they have been prompted by the anger felt by shop traders in Chandler's Ford's troubled central shopping precinct in Bournemouth road. They are angry that police officers are to be transferred from that area to make good personnel shortages elsewhere. As reported in the Southern Daily Echo, they complain that the precinct is "a magnet for vandals" and say that matters
will only get worse if fewer police are on patrol.
I think that all hon. Members would agree with that. The article continued:
In the past few months, gangs of youths and young girls have vandalised seating, upturned concrete plant pots. scrawled graffiti on buildings and verbally abused anyone who has challenged them.
Several shops have regularly had windows smashed, takeaway food has been smeared over windows and rubbish and excrement pushed through letterboxes. In some cases, attempts have been made to set fire to items pushed through doors.
Such stories show how bad the situation is.
On 29 November, the Home Secretary launched his crime-reduction strategy and stated that the Government had embarked on a crusade against crime. Laudable though the aims of the strategy may be, I am having difficulty in relating them to what is happening on the ground. Page 2 of the strategy's summary refers to:
a new ring-fenced crime fighting fund part of which will be used to enable forces to recruit, train and pay 5,000 new officers, over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited, over the next three years and commencing in April 2000.
I suggest that it is a little optimistic to promise to increase our police forces by 5,000 new officers when there are 3,000 gaps in the thin blue line every day due to unfilled vacancies and sickness. Still, the Home Secretary has

challenged police authorities to agree plans for more bobbies on the beat, and, if they meet their targets, they will receive more money from the Home Office.
About half our police force funding comes from council tax payers, with the other half coming from the Home Office. In recent years, Hampshire is fortunate to have received additional grants of £2.7 million to enable it to increase its police establishment by 222 full-time equivalent police officers, bringing its total establishment up to 3,491. But the force is currently 66 constables short. That may not seem a lot, but, coupled with the pressures that officers are under, it has a significant impact on the area.
Superintendent Tribe, the divisional commander in the Eastleigh police station, which serves my constituency, says:
Our problem lies in that we are supposed to be all things to all people. We are expected to provide anything from a traditional policing with a 'bobby on the beat' that people know and recognise to a round-the-clock emergency service response. The public, rightly, has increasingly high expectations of our performance and we are constantly having to expand into new areas.
He cites establishing a dedicated domestic violence officer, as well as
sending officers into school to help prevent the children from getting into trouble, and in Hampshire we are participating in the new Youth Offenders Team pilot with probation officers and youth workers.
For all that extra work, over and above normal requirements, the Hampshire police authority receives no additional resources.
If my constituents want more bobbies on the beat, the Hampshire police authority will have to meet the Home Secretary's challenge. Council tax payers will have to pay more, or cuts will be made elsewhere in Hampshire county council's budget. Even if the establishment is increased, we must find suitable recruits and retain more police officers.
I do not think that police officers are paid enough, and that applies to many other forces in the south-east. On appointment, a police officer receives £16,635 per annum, which rises to £18,612 after one year. That salary is not attractive enough to compete with commercial and other industrial employment in a prosperous part of the country—my constituency has virtually full employment. Moreover, in such an economically sound area, there is more to steal. Although recorded crime figures are decreasing—following the trend started in the previous Government's term of office-an awful lot of crime, such as the vandalism and thuggishness that I mentioned, is not reported.
I have three or four points to raise, and should be grateful for the Government's view. First, what about having a differential in rates of pay for police constables across the country? I am told that there is no problem in recruiting police officers on Merseyside and in similar areas of high unemployment. Recruitment is particularly difficult in the south-east and I think that the tripartite police negotiating board on pay and conditions of service should consider that possibility.
Secondly, we must think again about housing allowance. When I first started taking an interest in the police, officers were provided with dedicated housing, which they retained throughout their service. The housing has all gone—a victim, perhaps, of the right to buy.
Had that legislation excluded police houses, they might have been retained, but that chance has been lost. I am not suggesting a return to such provision, because buying the housing would be expensive. We could, however, reintroduce the housing allowance. It was phased out at the same time as dedicated houses, and reintroducing it would make the job much more attractive, particularly to police officers' families. It would improve retention as well as recruitment.
Thirdly, we should think again about reintroducing police cadets. I believe that the Metropolitan police force still has cadet units. There is no doubt that the Territorial Army units' sponsorship of local cadet forces has helped to recruit youngsters into the armed forces. The same can be said of the police forces, and local police authorities might like to reconsider whether there is merit in reintroducing police cadets to build up the ethos of both public service and service in the police forces.
Fourthly, we should look at the retirement rules. At present, police officers retire after 30 years of service, or when they are 55. There is a provision for that age limit to be extended to 60 if applicants wish it and if they have a good service record. Many jobs can be done by people over the age of 60. I am one such person and, looking round the Chamber, I can see plenty of others over the age of 60 who are still contributing to society by serving their constituents in Parliament. I do not see why police officers should be forced to retire at 60 when they could probably come off the beat and go into an office, with all the experience gained from their years of service, and continue to add to the establishment of the police force.
Finally, there should be more special constables back on the beat, as they have an enormous contribution to make. First, they are volunteers, so they are dedicated to the task of policing. Secondly, they are free—we do not pay them. They receive a free uniform and their expenses are covered. Most importantly, they have strong local community links. That is the real value of a bobby on the beat. In addition to the 3,500-odd police in our establishment in Hampshire, there are another 700 special constables, and I only wish that there were more.

Mr. Peter Viggers: When visiting my local police station, I discovered that many special constables want to see what the police force is like, with a view to joining it later. Allowing special constables to have that role would be useful in recruiting police.

Mr. Colvin: That could well have been my fifth point. My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution. Job tasting is an important part of recruitment and could be tried in the armed forces as well as the police service. Some Members of Parliament who are taking part in the armed forces scheme may be tempted from this place to serve their country in other areas.
In conclusion, I do not want to give the impression that Hampshire is a lawless place. It is not. Recorded crime continues to go down, following the trend established in the previous Government's term of office, but we do not know how much unrecorded crime there is. We do know, however, that there is a problem right across the south-east of England in recruiting and retaining the very high-quality police officers to whom we have become

accustomed. I hope that my suggestions will be listened to seriously by the Government, and I look forward to hearing their response in due course.

Ms Jenny Jones: My reason for speaking is to try to prevent an impending deadlock over the sale and redevelopment of the former Wolverhampton Royal hospital in my constituency. As we speak, important decisions are being made about the site's future, and the situation is not hopeful.
The former hospital is a grade 2 listed building in the middle of Wolverhampton. It dominates the All Saints area, and is situated in one of the most deprived wards of the west midlands. The area has been subject to regeneration initiatives for some years. The decision to close the hospital was taken in the early 1990s and was controversial, partly because the hospital contained the town's accident and emergency services, but partly because it was held in great affection. I was against closure, but by the time of the general election in 1997, the plan was too far advanced to be reversed. It seemed a more positive use of energy to seek to ensure that redevelopment would benefit local people and the whole of Wolverhampton.
From the outset, Wolverhampton council and the local community made it clear that the site's redevelopment required what planning jargon refers to as mixed use. In other words, there could certainly be commercial development that would bring in money, but there must also be social housing and facilities for local people. The redevelopment of the hospital site was seen as the focus of the area's regeneration, and the plans were enshrined in a document titled "Royal Hospital Development Area—Wolverhampton Town Centre Urban Village". The plans were also included in the council's unitary development plan, and were subsequently approved by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, a point to which I shall return.
When the hospital was handed over to estates officials of the national health service executive for disposal, they were made aware of the plans and of what the town, the council and the local people wanted. The site was first marketed in 1998, but that attempt was not successful. A second attempt to market the site occurred earlier this year. In between the two, I facilitated a round-table meeting in All Saints involving residents, council officials, councillors, churches, schools, voluntary groups, housing associations and the NHS executive. The purpose of the meeting was to highlight the expectations of the local community and the council, and to make officials aware of what people wanted from redevelopment. After the meeting, everyone was positive, feeling that a greater understanding of the community's needs had been achieved.
However, the result of the second attempt to market the hospital site has been disappointing. The NHS executive seems likely to agree to a food superstore. That option does not fulfil the needs of local people and, as it is counter to the council's unitary development plan, it probably will not receive planning permission. There is a supermarket 200 yd away, so the proposal does not seem to make sense, and the council has already earmarked a further site within half a mile of the hospital for a food superstore.
The reaction of the NHS executive officials is that Government guidelines bind them to achieving the best value for money deal. The hospital has been closed for two years. The building has been vandalised. The executive has changed its security firm three times, and the costs of patrolling the building are likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. If the executive goes ahead with the plan for a food superstore, the council will probably not give planning permission, and we shall be locked into appeals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The local community will campaign against the development, and the hospital building could stand empty for at least another year.
I have written to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to outline the problem. I asked whether his officials might be able to exercise discretion in the disposal of the site so that we could achieve mixed use. I wrote to my hon. Friend at the end of October and have not yet had a reply, although I am fairly confident that I shall receive one soon.
A food superstore is not what we need. My constituents and the rest of Wolverhampton deserve a lot better. The hospital was originally built and maintained by public subscription. The people of Wolverhampton built that hospital. It would not be acceptable if the NHS executive walked away from the site with maximum financial gain and without contributing to regeneration of the immediate area. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to pass on my message to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, and, although I know that the latter is busy, I would like a reply to my letter.
A wider issue is at also stake. I cannot understand why a plan accepted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions appears to be being thwarted by the criteria applied by the Department of Health—perhaps some joined-up government is needed.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to start on a carping note, but I regret the absence of the Leader of the House this evening. Those of us who served in previous Parliaments recall the tradition that the Leader of the House should attend this debate. That was a good tradition, and I hope that the practice is reinstated.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise two constituency matters that have a wider import. The first is the availability of beta interferon in Lincolnshire health authority's area. The second is funding of Lincolnshire police, on which I shall make some remarks not dissimilar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).
My interest in beta interferon arises from my concern about two constituents. I do not think it right to name them, so I shall call them N and E for the purposes of the debate. Both are young ladies in their late 20s, who have recently developed multiple sclerosis. Both have been seen by general practitioners and have been referred to the consultant neurologist responsible for decisions in this area, to whom I shall refer as Professor B. He is responsible for identifying those among those referred to him who would benefit from beta interferon.
In both cases, Professor B concluded that my constituents would benefit from beta interferon. Having regard to their ages, he concluded that the treatment would be particularly appropriate. In a letter to the health authority concerning N, he wrote:
Here is another patient with very active multiple sclerosis who is having frequent attacks and a high risk of significant disability. She has had six attacks in the last 12 months. As we have no currently available funding in Lincolnshire Health for incidence cases I would be grateful if you would let me know when additional funding will be made available for patients like
N. He continued:
We now know that treatment as early as possible in the disease course is critical in order to avoid long-term disability and I would be grateful if you can support additional funding for such patients.
In respect of patient E, her GP wrote:
The only available treatment for relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis is beta interferon, which is indicated for the reduction of frequency and the degree of severity of clinical relapses. It is only effective if given in the early stages of the disease process. It is imperative that she receives the best treatment available. Clearly, at present this is not the situation. As her GP, she has my complete authoritative support and I think that the health authority should be responsible for and fund her treatment.
I regret to say that funding is not available. Lincolnshire health authority has ring-fenced a budget of £200,000, and it adopts the position that it cannot go beyond that sum. Mr. Jeavons of the health authority wrote to me about its policy. His letter stated:
Within the fixed sum available only Consultant Neurologists can judge which patients will benefit the most from treatment, and thus should receive priority. We cannot increase our level of funding for beta interferon because we face many competing demands for resources, most notably the rapidly rising demand for emergency medical admissions.
That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
Budgetary constraints operating in Lincolnshire—and, no doubt, elsewhere—actively prevent the prescribing of drugs to those for whom the clinical neurologist recommends them. A letter to me from the professor makes it plain that one cannot prioritise within the groups of people who satisfy the clinical criteria; all of them are equally eligible and would benefit to a like degree.
That is a clear example of rationing by budget—I have no doubt that it is true elsewhere.

Mr. Peter Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to point out that there are similar problems elsewhere. This morning, I received a most disturbing letter from a constituent who complained of rationing not by budget but by postcode. I understand that my health authority has no budget at all for beta interferon.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to hear that. In another letter to me, the professor pointed out that, because of budgetary constraints, perhaps only one in six of the patients who would benefit from beta interferon is receiving it.
Ultimately, the Government are responsible and I am entitled to know where they stand on the following options. The first would be to do nothing but simply say, "Well, that's tough. Too bad, we are not going to do anything." If that is the Government's position, we should know. Secondly, they could tell the Lincolnshire health authority to allocate more money to the budget. The authority would then have to move money from another


spending head. Is that the Government's position? Thirdly, the Government could say that they will allocate more money to the health authority. If that is their position, we should know about it. If that is not their position, we should know why.
For aught I know, there are various other possibilities, but it is the Government's business to tell us what the alternatives are. I realise that the Minister is not able to comment in detail; I do not blame him for that. The Leader of the House would also be unable to comment in detail. However, the Minister could tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the House is entitled to a considered reply to the points that I have made. I trust that he will persuade his right hon. Friend to write to me and, furthermore, that a letter will be placed in the Library.
In relation to the funding of the Lincolnshire police, we find that rural areas are being disadvantaged under the Labour Government. There are two general points. First, the number of police in the county is lower than when the Conservatives were in office. In April 1997, we had 1,214 constables in Lincolnshire. A year later, in April 1998, the number had risen by four. In April 1999, there were 1,165 constables—a decrease of 49 since 1997. I suspect that that is matched in many shire forces.
Secondly, Lincolnshire receives the second lowest grant per head of the population. In consequence, as in the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey, council tax payers in my constituency are paying about 34 per cent. more than the average rate. As all those Members who represent rural areas are well aware, the problem is sparsity. For obvious reasons, it costs much more to provide a police service in a sparsely populated region. I need not go into the reasons, as they will be well known to those who are interested in the matter.
I am not usually fair to the Government, but in this case I will be and will point out that, in April 1998, the Home Office commissioned ORH Ltd. to produce a report, which was received in May 1999. A letter sent by the Home Office to police authorities stated that the working party to whom the consultants had reported found that there was a serious sparsity factor. The consultants recommended a heavy shift in spending priorities to take account of the sparsity factor in the formula. In Lincolnshire, that would increase the cash by about £2 million, or about 3 per cent. That is a significant amount in a budget of about £60 million. That is important.
In September, I received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in which he stated, in effect, that there was problem but that the Government were not in a position to address it. Indeed, they could not give me any guarantee for the next three years.
Plainly, in Lincolnshire, we have too few policemen—fewer than there were two years ago. It is acknowledged that sparsity is a serious factor, but the Government completely refuse to pay any attention to the report that they commissioned and which has been endorsed by the Home Office working party. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. I realise that the Minister will not be able to give me a considered reply—even the Leader of the House would not be able to do so. I do not complain about

that. However the Minister can certainly draw my remarks to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and suggest that a considered and sympathetic response would be in order. A copy of that letter should go to the Library of the House.

Mr. Colvin: I draw the attention of the House and of my right hon. and learned Friend to the excellent Adjournment debate initiated by our right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 2 December on the policing of rural areas. Our right hon. Friend listed the 14 police authorities—including Lincolnshire—which face the problem described by my right hon. and learned Friend and which have jointly lobbied the Home Office. I recommend that my right hon. and learned Friend joins forces with those authorities and perhaps he will receive a better answer from the Minister of State, Home Office than our right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon received on 2 December.

Mr. Hogg: I should put it differently—they might join forces with me. Lincolnshire is one of the counties that suffer most acutely. It is perfectly true that 14 forces are affected by the sparsity factor. They are referred to in the ORH Ltd. report and by the Home Office working party.
In respect of the police and beta interferon, we must acknowledge that those who live in rural areas are being disadvantaged by the Government. Those of us who represent those people must ensure that the whole country knows and understands that.

Mr. John McDonnell: The debate gives us the opportunity to raise grievances that have not been dealt with. I demand redress for my constituent, Andrea Morgan. Some months ago, I raised her case in a debate on myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). At that time, I believed that, after a long struggle, the case had been resolved.
However, tragically, the sorry tale of a bureaucracy pursuing a lengthy and virulent campaign of harassment against my constituent continues, because, although she suffers from ME, she has dared to stand up for her right to fair treatment from the local authority. Since the Lawrence inquiry, there has been much debate about institutional racism. Andrea Morgan's case is an example of institutional discrimination on grounds of disability. I hope that, by exposing the case again, I will halt in its tracks the campaign against her by the malevolent bureaucracy of the London borough of Hillingdon. I shall explain what can happen to people with disabilities if they dare to demand fairness and justice.
The background is that Andrea was an employee of the London borough of Hillingdon. Ironically, her post was to assist long-term unemployed people—especially those with disabilities—to return to work. After six years, she was redeployed within the council to assist members of the public with their problems—providing information, advice and assistance. She was generally considered to be good at her job—competent, committed and sensitive to the needs of the community.
In January 1997, Andrea was taken ill and eventually, in May 1997, she was admitted to hospital after collapsing, and was diagnosed as suffering from ME.


The full details of the condition were outlined in a report by Dr. Sevitt, the Hillingdon hospital consultant. Andrea was treated by her general practitioner and was in regular contact with Dr. Thompson, health adviser to the London borough of Hillingdon.
Andrea Morgan is a worker, not a shirker. She is keen to get back to work as soon as possible, and was so at that time. So Andrea herself arranged appointments with the borough's health adviser, which produced in September 1997 from that adviser, Dr. Thompson, the following advice to the London borough of Hillingdon personnel department:
If at all possible she would be able, from a medical point of view, to start work at home with a view to a slowly graded return to work, which can only be decided in terms of her symptoms.
The doctor continued:
I would be grateful if you could let me know if this would be possible.
No response was received from Hillingdon, despite Andrea's phone calls and messages left in the personnel department, so, in November 1997, a further memo was sent by Dr. Thompson to the personnel department, saying:
I would reiterate my last memo of 26 September that Miss Morgan is fit to start work at home when this is possible and that this should be followed by graded return to work in line with her symptoms. It is important that, even though she remains well, the gradation of her return does not increase, and that her symptoms are monitored carefully, as too much too early could cause a recurrence of her symptoms.
There was no response from the borough, so Andrea yet again arranged for an interview. She took with her her GP's note, saying:
Andrea is now ready to return to work but needs a period of part-time work to ease herself back into routine. I hope that this is possible".
This is a woman struggling to get back into work, despite a severe illness, diagnosed by several doctors, including consultants at Hillingdon hospital and her own GP.
Andrea eventually did return to work, in November 1997, but what did the London borough of Hillingdon do? Was there any assistance for her? No. The borough refused to allow her access to its own recuperation programme. On the day that she returned to work, her own manager was late. There were no arrangements for prior induction. She was set up to fail. She could not cope in those circumstances, and left her employment on that day.
The occupational health adviser informed the council:
This sort of stress is likely to be detrimental to her health and could quite possibly cause a relapse.
Andrea again tried to return to work. She sought redeployment. She was willing to do everything within her abilities to get back to work, and she was referred to the borough's corporate monitoring panel to match her to any vacancies that arose. Departmental managers were also asked whether they could provide some work for her to do at home. Although in other instances the borough paid other employees a full salary and found them work to do at home, that was not the case for Andrea. It seems that it is all right if one is able-bodied, but not if one has a disability.
Having done nothing to help, the borough's personnel department suggested that Andrea be psychologically tested. In a debate earlier in the year, we heard that many

ME sufferers have endured similar treatment. The argument is that they are not sick—that the problem is not physical but psychological. It is the modern-day equivalent of "it is all in the mind" or "it is psychosomatic". It has revealed the attitude of the personnel manager to ME sufferers that they all seem to be classified as "mental malingerers".
Time dragged on. The borough made no real effort to find an appropriate job for Andrea and, in January 1998, after months of trying to get back into work, she could cope no longer and resigned her employment with the borough. In February 1998, Andrea, through her union, Unison, lodged an industrial tribunal application with regard to the borough's treatment of her, on the grounds of discrimination on disability.
In October 1998, the industrial tribunal found unanimously in Andrea's favour. It said:
The London Borough of Hillingdon unlawfully discriminated against her, a disabled person".
The tribunal did not believe that, in an organisation of 8,000 employees, the borough could not find some work for her to assist in her return to work. It cited numerous examples of other employees who had been assisted in such a way.
What did the borough do? Immediately, in the local paper, it distorted the judgment, claiming that it would appeal because it could not create work for Andrea when there was no work for her to do—a complete distortion of the decision.
The decision should have been an end to the case, and Andrea was looking forward to putting the whole issue behind her and starting a new life, possibly in new employment—but no, bizarrely, the London borough of Hillingdon appealed. Personnel officers lodged their own industrial tribunal appeal application, using the borough's resources. Although that was subsequently denied by the chief executive, I have the paperwork on which they lodged the claims in their own personal names, on London borough of Hillingdon headed paper.
In May 1999, the appeal was dismissed. The personnel officers dropped their own case, and they were refused leave to appeal further by Lord Justice Morison.
In June 1999, the London borough of Hillingdon applied to the Court of Appeal for refusal of leave to be lifted. In November 1999—only a month ago—Mr. Justice Sedley refused leave to appeal and said:
Even if there were not a second tier appeal requiring particular cogency, I would not consider it a proper case for permission to appeal. It has in my view no real prospect of success.
I understand that, even now, the borough is considering further appeals and further pursuits of this case. In the past year, the borough has settled numerous employee cases at industrial tribunals, and settlements have ranged from £4,000 to £45,000, but in this case it is determined not to settle.
The costs incurred by the borough in pursuing its vendetta against my constituent—a disabled woman—are staggering. They must now amount to more than £100,000—the costs of counsel's opinion, counsel's representation in court, legal officers' advice, personnel officers' advice, occupational health advisers' advice and the administrative tasks involved in this escapade. The matter has been referred to the district auditor, but he seems incapable of investigating the matter.
I am demanding a full investigation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I believe that, if there have been issues of unreasonable behaviour, the district auditor should surcharge officers and, if necessary, members in this case. What we have on our hands is a grubby, hurtful conspiracy to victimise my constituent, which should not go unrecorded and must be remedied. That is what these debates are for—to draw attention to that type of disgraceful behaviour by a public body.

Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on matters to be considered before the Christmas Adjournment—or, perhaps more apocalyptically, matters to be considered before the end of the millennium. It may be the right moment to place on the record my appreciation of the efforts of the bodies in my constituency to celebrate the millennium.
I shall not be polite about the dome—I shall be entirely consistent on that matter. I have been rude before and I shall be rude again, and I suspect that, as a result, I am not on the Christmas card list of the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am talking about the individual community efforts that are taking place throughout the country—small-scale schemes in villages and small towns, which have much to commend them. I think of the church bell schemes—I saw some instituted in Isle Abbotts recently. I think of millennium greens. I think of the excellent work done on Jack and Jill hill—the hill that Jack and Jill went up to fetch their pail of water, in Kilmersdon in my constituency—which has now been reconstituted by the efforts of local people. All are excellent schemes.
I do not intend to spend my entire time in congratulating my constituents, tempting though that is. Instead, I shall address a serious matter, which I believe that the House should consider, and should consider time and again in the next few months. That is the very real threat that has been posed by the Government's actions to rural sub-post offices—and urban post offices because they will face the same dangers.
I do not believe that the Government have grasped the scale of the problem. They cannot have grasped the extent to which people are concerned about the threat to their local sub-post offices. They realise, if the Government do not, that half our rural sub-post offices could disappear in the next few years, as a result of Government actions. Regrettable is not a sufficient word to describe that. It would be worse than a decimation.
I am indebted to the actions of our major regional newspaper, the Western Daily Press, which has been running a vigorous campaign on the issue. If Ministers need proof of how upset people are about the issue, they need only look at the coverage in the Western Daily Press and consider the number of people who are queueing up to sign a petition in their tens—I think hundreds—of thousands. People are even demanding a petition in their sub-post office, if there is not already one there, so that they may add their name to the list.
I had a valuable meeting with the postmasters and postmistresses from the smaller post offices in my constituency. It took place at 2 o'clock on a Saturday

afternoon when most of them were trying to run their businesses. My constituency is large—it can take an hour and a quarter to drive from the far end of it to Frome where the meeting was held—but, despite all that, the postmasters and postmistresses were there in number. The majority were represented and they were unanimous in their view. Every one of them saw the Government's plans as a threat to their businesses over the next few years.
I do not dispute that the Government's proposals for automation will unlock potential in sub-post offices. I want that to happen and I want such post offices to extend the range of services that they provide. However, the Government's plans for the payments of benefits and pensions and for the changeover to automated credit transfer will have a simultaneous and opposite effect. It represents a real threat to those businesses. I am told that up to 35 per cent. of the turnover of the post offices in my constituency comes from the payment of pensions and benefits and that, in urban areas, that figure can rise even higher. However, post offices will lose not just that business, which they undertake on an agency basis, but the added business that goes with it. When people come into a post office to collect their pensions, they do their shopping or pick up a newspaper; they do other business.
Postmasters and postmistresses also see a second threat—a threat to the value of their businesses. Those of them who are thinking of retiring and believe that they have served the community for long enough find it almost impossible to dispose of their businesses in the present climate and with the uncertainty that lies ahead. It is difficult to produce a realistic business plan. If someone wants to buy a post office, he cannot produce a realistic business plan that will satisfy the banks enough to lend him money. They do not know what sort of business will be there in future.
The continuation of such businesses, the loss of jobs and, most of all, the loss of community facilities are real issues. Villages have lost so many things in recent years. Many villages do not have a village shop, post office or pub. However, the Government's proposal is a further threat to village life and it will encourage villages to become dormitories and museums rather than the living communities that we want them to be.
Coupled with the difficulties to the businesses themselves are the difficulties that will be posed to the many people who collect their pensions or benefits from post offices. Pensioners are an important group in that respect, but they are not the only people in that position. Those with disabilities and young mothers who do not have transport of their own may find that the post office is an essential resource if they are to lead their normal lives. They will be placed in an almost impossible position if, at some stage in the future, they cannot use post offices to collect their pensions or benefits.
The answer often given is that such people should use bank accounts. However, there are several problems with forcing people to have bank accounts. First, there is the question whether the clearing banks would be prepared to accept their business. People on low incomes are very often not considered to be good credit risks by banks and credit is often determined by the postcode of where one happens to reside. I foresee real problems. We could end up with the Government having to pay the banks to take the business rather than paying post offices to continue the business that they carry out.
People on low incomes can ill afford the charges on bank accounts. Perhaps Ministers have forgotten the problems in living from hand to mouth and managing a very small budget over a month rather than over a week. It is intensely difficult for people to manage in those circumstances, as any citizens advice bureau and any Member who has held a surgery knows. However, the Government's proposal would take away a facility that enables people to budget more easily.
Transport is another problem. Many people cannot get to a bank. They are airily told that they can use an automated telling machine. However, in some areas of my constituency, the nearest automated telling machine is 30 miles away. How on earth are people supposed to use that? How on earth are they supposed to find the public transport, which does not exist, to get them to a bank, which does not exist, so that they can withdraw the money that is rightfully theirs?
There are also societal problems. Post offices provide a much wider resource than simply paying over money or selling a jar of coffee. They perform a social function that is critical in these days when people are often terribly isolated and find it difficult to meet others. The post office is the place where they meet, do business and can find a friend or a contact who they know will be on their side and who will assist them when they need help.
The Government's suggestion is based on making savings to the social security budget. No one in the House would deny the desirability of making savings on that budget if the money can be used elsewhere. However, those savings should not be made at the expense of people or of individual or community interests.
If the Minister agrees that the post office network is valuable—I believe that it is invaluable—will he tell us how the Government will sustain it to the point that it can benefit from automation? It is no good saying that there will be jam tomorrow if post offices go out of business today. How will the Government help those who rely on post offices for their pensions and benefits? We have heard much about the social exclusion unit, and this job, above all others, is one for that unit. It should provide a strategy to deal with a problem before it is created by a Government who, in this instance, have taken the wrong turning.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I associate myself fully with the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I am sure that I would not be alone among Labour Members in expressing that view.
I wish to raise two issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents. The first is the position of slaughterhouses within the rural economy. Over many years, the number of small slaughterhouses serving their own localities has sharply declined. That decline has been hastened by the expression—quite rightly—of new concerns about hygiene and animal welfare. It is proper that such issues should be at the forefront of our minds. However, large operations find it much easier than small family-run businesses to adapt their premises and mode of business to the relevant regulations and changes.
Of course, on top of that we have had the crisis that has emanated from the concern over BSE, the complete collapse of the rendering trade and the collapse of the economies in the far east and Russia, which has deprived

producers of an outlet for the sale of hides. The burdens placed on the proprietor of the small slaughterhouse have become greater and greater and his margins have narrowed.
That has a great effect on the rural economy, particularly on farmers. If the local slaughterhouse closes, farmers must transport their beasts much further afield. That has a consequence for them because their costs rise, particularly when fuel prices are high, but it also causes concern about the welfare of the animals being transported. On the one hand, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, we are making improvements through modernisation and by being concerned about welfare, but, on the other, we are increasing welfare risks by lengthening the journey time for animals.
That issue is more vividly in my mind because of the actions of the Intervention Board, which recently reduced from 29 to 21 the number of approved slaughterhouses that can operate in contract with the board on the over-30-months scheme. It said in its press handout that the remaining slaughterhouses will be geographically appropriate and the change should not greatly increase the journey time. In East Anglia, there is no contracted, approved slaughterhouse. From 22 December, the slaughterhouse in Brentwood will cease to have a contract, and the venue nearest to East Anglia will be in Derbyshire or Kent. Whatever the ambitions of our Saxon forebears, I never thought that Derbyshire was part of the eastern counties or East Anglia.
That change has exactly the same consequences as the closure of small slaughterhouses: the journey time and distances over which the animals are being transported are enormously lengthened. Indeed, there will be trips of up to 150 miles, some of which will be on country roads, with aged, and in some cases, frail or unwell animals that are subject to the over-30-months scheme. Such journeys can hardly be beneficial to their welfare.
The consequence of the change is, allegedly, that the Intervention Board will save some £5 million. It may well do, but the world is a strange place and, as with all savings, when money is saved in one area, costs seem to
crop up somewhere else. As the Intervention Board saves £5 million, the farmers who produce the beasts are laden with the cost of making that saving as they transport their animals further and further to slaughterhouses.
My final point about slaughterhouses relates to the system of double inspection, which I am sure all hon. Members who represent rural areas will have been told about by local producers. Slaughterhouses or, as they are now normally known, abattoirs, are inspected not only by somebody from the Meat Hygiene Service, but by an approved official veterinary surgeon.
Slaughterhouse inspection is not the most attractive occupation for veterinary surgeons, and there is concern that because this country has a shortage of vets who want to undertake what is, in essence, a monotonous and low-level occupation, vets are being brought in from abroad. Their English is often, initially at least, poor, but an agency charges the slaughterhouse a high fee for those vets, which is passed on to the producer.
Many people say to me that they believe that it is unnecessary to have two inspectors present at the same time. I submit that it would be helpful if the Government's red tape working group, which I know is greatly
welcomed, could attend to that matter. It could find out where savings could be made and consider how to switch the burden to high-risk areas, where increased supervision might be needed. Where there is a low risk, other approaches could be taken. Tomorrow, we shall hear the first results of the working group's deliberations, and I hope that it will take those matters into account thereafter.
The second matter that I wish to discuss is one that I raised the very first time that I spoke in an Adjournment debate, in the autumn of 1997—the Hatfield Peverel to Witham link road, which is in my constituency. Some hon. Members may have heard of the town of Witham; fewer, perhaps, will have heard of Hatfield Peverel. I suspect that its main claim to fame is that it is the home address of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but, in our locality, we do not broadcast that fact more often than necessary.
The Hatfield Peverel to Witham link road is an essential feature of transportation safety in that part of Essex. The Al2, which runs between Witham and Hatfield Peverel, is notoriously congested and dangerous, and the accident statistics are way above what would be anticipated on that section of road.
I raised this matter in the House in one of my early speeches in the Chamber in autumn 1997. I then went to see the Minister responsible, and I thought that things happened easily and quickly thereafter because I soon had a letter saying that the road, which is only about a mile long, had been approved as one requiring a safety measure, and, that summer, it was incorporated into the roads programme as a minor scheme. In spring 1998, it was referred to the Highways Agency for progress to be made.
The scheme has been in the intended budget of Essex county council for many years, and I am sure that it was pushed in this House by my predecessor and, indeed, by other Members who are greatly concerned. The scheme was announced on safety grounds in January 1998, yet nothing further of any substance has occurred and it is now December 1999.
I have been to see representatives of the Highways Agency, who told me in the spring that substantial progress would be made by July. July has come and gone and we are now in December. Colleagues from the county and district councils have approached the Highways Agency and been told that progress will be made by spring 2000—a vaguer date than July—but still nothing further has occurred.
I raise the matter because I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will have the ear of those concerned. I hope that they will grab by the ear those in the Highways Agency who are responsible for the development of the road. What a dreadful thing it would be if there were further deaths on the road because of the apparent inertia since the safety scheme was announced.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I beg to move that this House should not adjourn until it has considered a clear and present danger: nuclear terrorism.
New York City Under Threat From Iranian-Backed Terrorist Group

would be an alarming headline, but not one without precedent. If we knew that those terrorists were armed with a primitive nuclear device stolen from a loosely guarded Russian stockpile, it would be the stuff of nightmares. Yet, unknown to most people, that was a genuine threat investigated by the CIA and the FBI only months after the bombing of the World Trade Centre.
The collapse of the Soviet Union has made nuclear terrorism more likely. We rightly fear that terrorists and rogue states might gain access to Russian nuclear weapons and use them, or threaten to use them, against us. Despite Chechnya, it is in our enlightened self-interest to provide generous international financial assistance to Russia in order to reduce that threat.
Incidents of nuclear terrorism have already occurred, though they have received little publicity. In November 1995, the Chechen guerrilla leader, Shamil Basayev, informed Russian television that his group had placed a container of radioactive caesium 137 in the Ismailovo park in Moscow. Although Russian officials subsequently dismissed the threat, the fact that teams were sent around the city with Geiger counters underlines the seriousness with which it was taken at the time.
Another incident occurred in spring 1997, when a blackmailer telephoned the president's office threatening to sabotage a nuclear power plant. According to Russian security services, the threat was not an empty one and there was great relief when the blackmailer was arrested.
Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threat of nuclear terrorism was virtually non-existent. What the Soviet Union called the
Nuclear shield of the Motherland",
was one of the state's top funding priorities and was protected from the "Imperialist West" by one of the most efficient police states in the world. Internal security was never seen as a potential threat. Therefore no investment was made in alarm systems, closed circuit television cameras and radiation detectors. It is only in today's Russia of severe budgetary difficulties and widespread corruption that the unthinkable has suddenly become possible.
At times, the lack of concern shown by Russian authorities over nuclear security issues in Russia would be risible if it were not so serious. The northern fleet had its electricity cut off by the local power company for not paying its bills. That action posed a severe risk of a meltdown in one of the fleet's nuclear-powered submarines. In November last year, 20 soldiers of the strategic missile force—the body responsible for guarding nuclear weapons—were discharged as mentally unfit.
With the collapse of the economy, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Russian Government to fund security measures for civil and military nuclear establishments. Military personnel have been withdrawn from most civilian research and weapons production centres. Those civilian centres must now provide their own security, despite dramatically reduced budgets.
Thousands of former employees who are currently unemployed retain their security passes. Military sites are guarded by soldiers whose pay is often erratic and who must often operate out-dated, if not dangerous, facilities. The results of an official Russian inquiry into conditions at nuclear storage facilities are horrifying.
The 12th main directorate of the Defence Ministry, responsible for security at military nuclear sites, reported that, at one facility, officers and men had not been paid


for three months and had thus suffered malnutrition that was severe enough to cause fainting fits. The officers were forced to borrow money to pay for the protective slippers used when working close to nuclear warheads.
All over Russia there are inadequately guarded facilities. In some places, nuclear materials are stored in no more than glass jars protected only by padlocks. The lack of proper inventories aids potential nuclear proliferation, for, if no one is aware exactly how much uranium or plutonium is stored, it is easy to make unauthorised withdrawals.
Such a scenario prompted President Clinton to authorise what is known as Project Sapphire. That was the covert removal of 600 kg of highly enriched uranium from the Kazak storage facility near the Iranian border. The laxity of the Kazak accounting was underlined by the fact that when the shipment arrived in the United States, it was found to contain 4 per cent. more uranium than that for which the US had paid.
It is not just a matter of future dangers if nothing is done—there is already a small but growing trade in radioactive material. The largest seizure came in August 1994, when 580 g of MOX—mixed oxide, used as fuel in light water reactors—was discovered at Munich airport on a Russian airliner. Of that 580 g, 300 to 350 g was plutonium close to weapons grade. The following year, 8 g of plutonium–239 was discovered on the Swiss border. As the plutonium was more highly enriched than is usually found in nuclear weapons, it is believed to have been smuggled out of the Arzamas–16 research centre.
Nuclear proliferation has three major components: plant, fissile material and personnel. Russia is witnessing a haemorrhage of experienced personnel from the formerly closed nuclear weaponry design and production centres. During the Soviet era, personnel in those secret establishments were some of the best paid and most highly respected members of society. However, since 1991, they have been periodically unpaid for months on end, their salaries have failed to keep pace with inflation even when they have been paid, and they have lost their status.
The situation worsened in April 1998 when the Russian Parliament stopped closed cities, where most of those facilities are located, retaining all taxes collected within their borders, and returned them to dependence on uncertain central Government funding. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that some Russian scientists are tempted to offer their services elsewhere. The average wage for a scientist in one of the closed cities is about $70 a month. Iran is offering up to $5,000 a month to the same people.
The scale of the problem is huge. In 1992, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy estimated that up to 3,000 former Soviet scientists had a detailed knowledge of nuclear weapon construction. That does not take into account the thousands of other specialists whose knowledge, although not directly related to weapon construction, could still be of use to a state or group looking to produce a nuclear device.
What can be done? The United States has taken the lead. Since its inception in 1991, Congress has appropriated more than $2.2 billion to the Nunn—Lugar co-operative threat reduction programme. The programme has been a success and has made a vital contribution to United States and global security. Under its auspices,

3,300 strategic nuclear warheads were removed from Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine, which are now free of nuclear weapons, and 4,700 former Soviet warheads have been removed from strategic weapon systems that used to point west. Hundreds of launchers, missiles and nuclear test tunnels have been destroyed.
It is clear, however, that the scale of the problem is so great that the programme does not go far enough. Russia needs western financial help to assist it to ratify the START 2 treaty. One of the major reasons for Russian delay, apart from nationalist opposition, is the $7.5 billion estimated cost of implementing START 2 for Russia. I suggest that self-interest should prompt the international community to assist with funds for this purpose. If the treaty is not ratified, the United States alone will have to spend $4 billion maintaining weapons that eventually will have to be destroyed.
Secondly, the west must provide money to improve Russia's nuclear safety and security infrastructure. According to General Maskin, head of the Defence Ministry's 12th main directorate, "reliability of personnel" is still a key. Physical security must also be addressed. The co-operative threat reduction programme will provide the Russian military with an automated system to track its nuclear materials. This system should be offered to non-military research establishments and the nuclear power station network. Investment funds must be made available to improve the physical security at nuclear facilities.
Links must be forged between Russian nuclear scientists and their counterparts in the west so that the Russians feel that they are fully integrated into the international scientific community. Russian research facilities should be twinned with American and European centres so that their work can be directed towards civilian research. The United States agreement to buy at least 500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium is an important non-proliferation measure and provides research centres with funds for conversion. Can we not go further? Could we not pay Russia to destroy an increasing part of its nuclear stockpile?
The United States and the international community are facing a huge potential proliferation problem, but one that can be brought under control with sufficient funding. Without further funding, the Russian nuclear weapons complex faces almost certain collapse. That will usher in a free for all among rogue states and terrorist groups, which will then pick up the radioactive pieces.

Dr. Rudi Vis: I return to the issue of Cyprus, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I am a member of the various groups that are associated with Cyprus and I have been to Cyprus three times. I have declared this information.
As my hon. Friend said, the United Kingdom has a grave responsibility for the future of Cyprus as a guarantor power. As he also said, a recent decision was made in Helsinki to allow Turkey to become an aspirant member of the European Union. I understand that that was due to the enormous pressure that the United States put on the leadership of the EU. I am concerned about the issue and, in the next two or three minutes, I shall attempt to explain why that is.
I shall mention five issues that count against the Turkish state. The first is Cyprus, an issue which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting presented so well; I shall not repeat his points. The second, which is known to us all, is the unacceptable discrimination of the Turkish state against the Kurdish people. Thirdly, there is the Loizidou case. Hon. Members may ask, "What is the Loizidou case compared with Cyprus and the Kurdish question?" It does not seem as important, yet it is crucial. A Greek Cypriot woman overwhelmingly won her case against the Turkish state in the European Court of Human Rights. She cannot go to her home, and is thus deprived of enjoying her home. She was offered a huge sum of money, but, a year and a half later, Turkey has not abided by the Court's decision. A nation cannot remain a member of the Council of Europe if it does not observe the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
The fourth issue is vital, and it was raised by a British Conservative delegate at the Council of Europe. Western European nations and other countries all over the world are overwhelmed by refugees and asylum seekers from Turkey. How can that be if Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe? It should uphold the human rights that are laid down by that organisation. The fifth issue is the death penalty, which will be meted out to Mr. Ocalan by the Turkish state. Again, that is against the Council of Europe's rules. If the Council of Europe has one achievement, it is speaking out against the death penalty. That is admirable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said earlier, Turkey has not adhered to many United Nations resolutions on Cyprus. We may be in a conflicting position, in which Turkey is thrown out of the Council of Europe while simultaneously being accepted as an aspirant member of the European Union. That would be most embarrassing. Those five issues should be raised repeatedly with Turkey before we progress further with relations between the Turkish state and the European Union. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on those comments to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I want to speak briefly about the procedures that the Government will pursue for considering regional planning for the south—east. Before I do that, I want to make some personal remarks because I do not know how else they can be placed on the public record.
On Sunday 5 December, The Sunday Telegraph published an article which made some critical comments about me. The next day, I brought the matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards because it seemed right and proper to do that as soon as possible. The substance of the complaint in the article was that I had failed to register a loan in the Register of Members' Interests.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards considered the matter and concluded that, because the difference between the interest that I had paid and the market rate at the time was not greater than £215, registration of the loan was not required. She also concluded that there was nothing wrong with the donations that were made to my constituency association.

However, she ruled that I should have registered my involvement with Asian Business Breakfast, although I had not gained financial benefit from that body. I took her advice immediately and registered my involvement.
I briefly draw the matter to the attention of the House because, given that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had made a ruling, I expected The Sunday Telegraph to make some comment about it in yesterday's edition, not least because it had published the original article under a headline that contained the word "sleaze". I was somewhat surprised, therefore, to see no mention at all of Miss Filkin's adjudication in yesterday's paper. When a colleague of mine approached another paper that had published the story, he was told that had I been found guilty of every offence by Miss Filkin that would have been news, but being exonerated for the main offence was not news. Such is the life we live, but I think that I should put those matters on the record before the House adjourns. Otherwise, I see no way of hon. Members knowing what has happened.
My real concern is the regional planning guidance process, and I say that as a former junior Minister for inner cities and for planning. Ministers cannot be unaware of the genuine concerns that exist throughout the south—east, but we have a problem because the Minister for Housing and Planning, for whom I have enormous respect, is sidelined: through no fault of his own, he is campaign manager for a Labour candidate for the London mayoral election. Early next year, the Government will publish new regional planning guidance for the south—east, for which there is a consultation period, and I suspect that a large number of people from villages and parishes throughout the south—east will want to take part.
I wrote to the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), asking whether she would consider visiting Oxfordshire during the consultation. My letter—which was courteous, not aggressive—asked her to come and listen to the concerns of local people about over—development in the south—east. To my total surprise, I received the fairly bureaucratic, dismissive response that Ministers had not yet worked out how they would deal with the consultation process. When I was a Minister, I considered it a particular obligation to visit the constituencies of Labour Members whenever they asked me to do so and I spent a great deal of my time, as did my ministerial colleagues in the then Department of the Environment, making such visits to listen to people's concerns. It seemed to be an important part of the democratic process that constituents should not feel that Ministers were not interested in their problems simply because their Member of Parliament was of a different political party.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who will reply to the debate, that there are genuine concerns about the proposal to build 1.1 million new homes in the south-east by 2016. It has been noted that not one Labour Member signed the letter to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing concerns about that, but it must be in the interests of the Labour party and the Government for Ministers to get out and about early next year when the draft regional planning guidance for the south—east is published. I can guarantee that Conservative Members, along with colleagues from other political parties in the various shire counties concerned, will be more than willing to arrange properly organised, sensible meetings


at which local authorities, local people and local amenity groups can reasonably and rationally express their concerns direct to Ministers.
It must be in the interests of democracy for everyone to feel that they have a part to play in the process. Democracy will be damaged and enormous resentment caused if people think that they have not been heard on this important issue, and the Government simply produce a new set of figures at the end of this nominal consultation process on draft regional planning guidance. In the short term, that will be bad electoral news for the Government and the Labour party. Much more significantly, it will undermine confidence in the planning system for years to come. I hope that the Minister will be able to convey to his ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that it must be in everyone's interests for them to listen during that crucial consultation period.

Mr. David Drew: One of the advantages of speaking at the end of the debate is that I have had the opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members. I should like to comment on the rural issues raised. I could comment on the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on nuclear terrorism, because I have read some of the same source material. I could also be taken along the planning route, about which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke. However, I shall stay with the rural theme that has been explored mainly by Opposition Members. I shall deal with funding issues, and then come back to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about rural sub-post offices.
It is a canard that the problems with the funding of rural authorities started in May 1997. Those of us with a legacy of involvement in local government and national politics in the rural domain could argue cogently and coherently that these problems have a much longer legacy. I take no pleasure in so saying, but it is important that we put that on the record. I want to draw attention to three problem areas, using examples from my constituency of Stroud and from the county of Gloucestershire. They do not result from immediate policy changes, because their antecedents occurred much further back. The three areas are health, education and policing.
On health, the problem for Gloucestershire is that the formula has been rejigged, which is causing concern among constituents and health professionals. I would argue that the formula should be reconsidered because of the lack of sensitivity in dealing with some of the problems that it is trying to address in difficult and varied circumstances. I would not demur from the view that we should try to deal with the biggest problems in the most deprived areas, which are usually the urban centres because of the number of people who live there. I strongly concur with the Government's approach of prevention rather than cure. We should deal with the worst excesses of health inequality and deprivation, but that should not be done at the cost of the health of others.
In Gloucestershire, we have identified vulnerable areas, particularly to do with older people, and they need to be addressed. Many people want to retire to Gloucestershire, and there may be good reasons for that—I am sure that other hon. Members have similar experiences in their

areas. People usually retire when they are fit and healthy, but, in their latter years, their health may deteriorate. Health authorities are sometimes not capable of dealing with the skewed nature of the health problems. That is particularly acute in Gloucestershire, which has a good reputation for dealing with people with special needs and learning difficulties. Some of them are older, and they are cared for by the residential and nursing sector. To be fair, that is accounted for in social services funding. We do not get as much as some of us would like, but we tend not to get equivalent and appropriate funding for health services.
My hon. Friend the Minister may care to comment on that, or pass on my remarks to his colleagues in the Department of Health, who need to be made more aware of the acute problems faced in Gloucestershire. The existing budget has to take much of the pressure, and that is neither fair nor reasonable. I can state categorically that we are pleased with many of the changes that the Government have introduced. The main acute hospital in the west of the county, Gloucestershire Royal hospital, is being refurbished, but much still needs to be done.
Gloucestershire's education has traditionally received low funding. We were part of the E8 group, which has now grown to become the E40. Heads are always approaching me to tell me about Gloucestershire's problems: it does not benefit from an area cost adjustment and, in both the secondary and the primary sectors, it has been relatively underfunded in comparison with other counties. There is a considerable difference—about £1,000—between the funding of Essex schools and that of Gloucestershire schools. That did not arise overnight, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the problems that it causes and the need to re—evaluate the formula.
A particular problem has been caused by the fact that many schools in my county chose to become grant£maintained, not for any philosophical reason but because more money was involved. Those schools have now returned to local control. There has been no blood—letting or arguments, either between the authority and the schools or, more particularly, between the schools, which says a lot for the professionalism of the teachers—including heads—and, indeed, for the attitudes of parents and children. An anomaly has been thrown up, however. The schools involved now have less money, which means redundancies—redundancies that will have to be shared throughout the LEA sector. That is unfair to schools that have remained under LEA control and also means that there is less money available generally.
As for policing, I do not disagree with the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) or with those of the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), but the sparsity factor is important. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a bit negative: I understood that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), had accepted—certainly in principle—that the arguments were sound and should be reflected in the rejigging of the formula. The problems relate to when we deal with the matter, where the money will come from and who may lose out as a result, but at least we have made the point.
By pure chance, a meeting took place with my local police authority this morning, attended by four Gloucestershire Members. We heard a doom—laden catalogue of the results of the current low increase,
but there was also some good news: if we can have the new police officers that the Home Secretary has said we will have, it will make a considerable difference. It will improve security, which is always a bone of contention in Gloucestershire, and may enable us to make progress with the radio project—a project that involves a good deal of capital expenditure in areas such as ours. I know that that is true in every part of the country, but it applies especially to a small rural force.
All those factors prove to me that there is a problem of funding in rural areas. I will not hide from that; I will not say that the Government should brush it under the carpet because it happens not to be convenient for them to talk about it. The reasons for the problem are obvious. They relate to how we measure distance, how we deal with isolation, the lack of economies of scale in our most rural areas, and, indeed, the ever—increasing likelihood that we need a debate on minimum standards. Obviously, in rural areas standards sometimes fall below the norm that is expected in urban areas.
I do not disagree with what was said by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. There is a real threat, but, as always in the case of threats, there are also opportunities. Last week, when I spoke in the debate on the Post Office, I said, "For heaven's sake, let us realise the opportunities." When I visited ICL last week to view the horizon project, I thought that there was a real chance to put the Post Office at the forefront of the new technology and of any competition, whether it came from within this country or, more particularly, from outside it. What worries me is that I am not sure whether that has been totally understood. I am not criticising Post Office management, and I am certainly not criticising those who are trying to run sub-post offices, but it should be realised that there are enhanced opportunities to extend postal and communication services.
On my Christmas visit to my post office, I heard that mail is up by 15 per cent. That shows what sub-post offices can do. On the back of that, they have to break into the network banking system, rather than view it as a total threat. What better way of turning the position round than to realise that banks which have lost all those branches can regain them again? They cannot do so through their own businesses as they have sold them, but they can use local sub-post offices, particularly those in rural areas. That is what people want and are looking forward to.
I am aware of the time, so I will not speak much about the matter, but the e-government debate is crucial. Sub-post offices could become the centre point of their communities, where people genuinely use the internet, find out information, but, more particularly, change passports, get a driving licence and use local government services in all their different forms. That shows that there is a nexus between commercialisation and the way we liberalise the system and democratising it and making it fully available.
I have tried to show that there is a need for a proper rural debate. That was no more clearly shown than by the publication of the performance and innovation unit report, "Rural Economies." There was a rumour that it was slipped out on a Friday. I hope that that is not true. I have read it quite quickly, so I will not pretend that I am an

expert on it, but it contains many good ideas. It is about putting forward a debate as a starting point to the rural White Paper, which will come some time next year.
There are many challenges in rural Britain, as those of us who are interested in the agricultural scene know only too well. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about one aspect of that. There are many challenges, but agriculture is not the whole rural scene, although it is an important part of it. We can show that we are capable of doing many things in the rural domain.
The planning process needs to be completely reformed, but not by going away from any controls and throwing away the green belt and the greenfield protection that we need. We have to recognise that some flexibility is required in the way in which we use old buildings and bring back communities that no longer have the opportunity to work in agriculture so that they can genuinely find work where they live.
I could make many other comments, but time is against me. I urge the House to start a proper debate on where we want to take our rural economy, rural services and, indeed, democracy in rural areas.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If they could confine their remarks to six to seven minutes each, all will be satisfied. Otherwise, I am afraid that all will not. I call Mr. David Amess.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to make several points. The first is a happy one. The Palace theatre opened last Wednesday. I am missing tonight's gala performance, but I am delighted to tell the Minister that he will not have to listen to any more complaints from me about that matter.
I congratulate all those who have been responsible for the constructive pressure that has resulted in the theatre reopening. In particular, I am delighted that the chairman of the Eastern Arts Board has supported the theatre and Key Med, the theatregoers club. I congratulate everyone associated with the reopening of the theatre. As I went on Saturday, I can commend to everyone "A Christmas Carol." It was a magnificent performance, better than any West End production.
The rest of my five minutes is not happy at all. I am sick to death of the Government, their photo opportunities, their press releases and their non-delivery of services. For two years, I have worked with all the people who wished to achieve objective 2 status for Southend. I had meetings with the Minister. I went to Europe. A few weeks ago, a letter was delivered to me by the Minister telling me that we had successfully achieved objective 2 status for Southend and, in particular, for Leigh and Chalkwell in Southend, West.
Leigh and Chalkwell have worked on various programmes to uplift those communities—with objective 2 funding, the creek would have been dredged, the jetty would have been enlarged, housing would have been redeveloped and various leisure facilities would have been provided. I am, therefore, sure that hon. Members will


appreciate the astonishment and deep anger I felt when, last week, as I was about to help switch on the Leigh lights, my attention was drawn to an item in the evening edition of the local newspaper, stating that Leigh and Chalkwell were not to benefit from objective 2 status.
The way in which I learned that information was a disgrace. At the very least, a Minister could have written to me about the matter, or contacted me on the telephone. Instead, the Government have treated me with complete contempt, and it sickens me. I have yet to receive a letter on the matter signed by the Prime Minister. Although I know only too well that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry are responsible for the matter, I cannot even get a signed letter on it from the leader of the Labour party. I have received one letter on it, but it was from the correspondence secretary, who will pass on the matter to the appropriate Minister.
It is an absolute disgrace that Ministers think that they can adopt a cavalier attitude towards hon. Members. I am sorry, but the way in which they have chosen to handle the matter demonstrates political spite. It is disgraceful to take it out on my constituents.
I have had one letter from a Minister—[Interruption.] The Government Whip shakes his head. I have received a letter from a Minister telling me that Leigh and Chalkwell would benefit from objective 2 status, but I have also read the opposite in a newspaper—as Ministers did not show the courtesy of sending me a letter to that effect. It is disgusting, and I blame no one other than the Prime Minister.
All my other remarks are on the same topic. Southend council has 19 Conservative councillors, 12 Liberal Democrat councillors and eight Labour councillors, and the Labour and Liberal Democrat members work together to keep the Conservative party out of power. The Liberal Democrats are constantly wringing their hands publicly, whereas, privately, they hang on to power. Although they make terrible noises, saying, "It's awful that Leigh and Chalkwell are being deprived of objective 2 status", if they were serious about it, they would withdraw from the alliance and give the Conservatives the chance to govern.
The closure of Lulworth Court—a respite centre for disabled people—has been announced, not by the Conservatives but by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. Blenheim house—a residential home for elderly people—has been closed. That was the fault not of the Conservatives but entirely of the Labour—Liberal council.
There has been hypocrisy over Hainault avenue, in Westborough—where a Labour activist has been campaigning to get the Liberal Democrats out and trying to hoodwink everyone into believing that, if they vote Labour in the May elections, the situation will change. As everyone knows, there are double yellow lines in Hainault avenue entirely because of the Lib—Lab council. If residents in Westborough want a change, they will have to vote Conservative in the next election.
There has been a scandal with asylum seekers, affecting—although we cannot obtain a firm figure from the local authority—more than 600 people. The treatment of asylum seekers in Southend has been cruel, and it is entirely the fault of the Labour Government. Schools have written to me about unfair funding arrangements for

asylum seekers. Southend has more asylum seekers than Thurrock; it has received £17,000, whereas Thurrock has received £150,000.
We have generally had an education fiasco in Southend. Although some hon. Members have said that they have not had many problems with formerly grant—maintained schools, I have had problems with them in Southend—in Westborough, for example, with nursery schools. I have also had complaints about the pupil retention grant and the standards funds.
We have the Labour Government to blame for underfunding of police. We do not have enough police.
Social services in Southend are charging. Day centres for the mentally handicapped are charging, and charges to many handicapped and elderly people have been increased vastly.
Finally we have the fiasco over mobile phone masts. I have problems in Chalkwell lodge, Cottesmore court and Highlands boulevard.
Sadly, apart from the performance of "A Christmas Carol", the scene in Southend, West is not a happy one. I entirely blame the Labour Government and our 12 Liberal councillors and eight Labour councillors.

Mr. Peter Luff: I had thought that mine might be the first partisan remarks tonight. I had not counted on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I found a great deal to agree with in what he and others have said, but I shall not waste time going over that.
I should like to tell the House a story of two reports that I received in the post in the same week. One was the Worcestershire health authority's health improvement programme. For all I know, it may be a controversial document with some members of the medical community in Worcestershire, but it is admirable in the sense that it is specific and can be pinned down. It has clear, measurable objectives and targets, and anyone can understand what the Worcestershire health authority is seeking to deliver.
In almost the same post, I received the West Midlands regional development agency's strategy document, Advantage West Midlands. I am a long—standing critic of regionalism. I have spoken against the concept in the Chamber on many occasion. I hope that even the staunchest friend of regionalism would admit that this document is awful. It is facile gibberish of the worst possible kind. Apparently, it has been awarded the plain English crystal mark for clarity.
In the chapter on "Developing a diverse and dynamic business base" under the heading "Developing Business Growth Task Groups", we read:
There may be opportunities for developing clusters as the networks become established. Its members (including sub-groups) may work on joint projects which have an end product. They would then be considered to be a 'cluster'… A force for converting into a cluster may be the action plans developed by the earlier networks.
I hope that the House followed that clear exposition.
Under the heading "The West Midlands Economic Strategy in context", we read about action plans, which are to evolve from that strategy. The document says:
Those working on the framework headings will be asked to advise the four pillar groups as to how the action plan should handle the framework.


Ah yes, of course. I could not have put it better myself.
I hope that the chairman, Mr. Stephenson, did not write the chairman's introduction. Indeed, I hope that he did not even read it. It is either the worst kind of new Labour platitudes or simply wrong. It says:
Innovation should be the touchstone for the actions we hope to facilitate to create the West Midlands' advantage.
That is dubious grammar to say the least, but what on earth does it mean? The document rightly cites entrepreneurs of whom the west midlands are proud—Abraham Darby, Josiah Wedgwood and Frank Whittle. They did not rely on Advantage West Midlands. The touchstone of their success was their personal ambition and talent. That is what matters.
The chairman says:
It is quite radical to attempt to tackle economic, environmental and social objectives at the same time … We have to develop the holistic framework in which policies can be effectively 'joined up' to meet local needs.
He is condemned out of his own mouth. It is not radical anyway. Governments have always sought to tackle economic, environmental and social objectives at the same time. The Conservative Government tried to do that and, to be fair, the Labour Government are trying to do the same, but are not doing it particularly well in my judgment.
I had not intended to read the document, but I settled down to it on the train and found that it was better value than Private Eye. The tragedy is that it is supposed to be a serious economic strategy for the west midlands, but it is not. It sets out a series of spurious aims, which duplicate the work of Government Departments. There is only one that I agree with—the sixth aim
"to provide sites and premises of the right size and quality, and in the right place."
That was previously addressed by English Partnerships, led by Lord Walker of Worcester, my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Worcester. The advantage of English Partnerships was that it had one office, one chairman and one chief executive. Now we have seven regional development agencies, with seven chairmen, seven chief executives and seven bureaucracies. That is a hopeless over—provision of bureaucrats with much less work done on the ground.
The seventh aim is extraordinary. It is
"to encourage people to take part in economic and community life."
The document goes on:
Regeneration programmes will deal with the need for childcare facilities, infrastructure, transport and premises … There will also be measures to tackle the problems of crime and ill health, as well as initiatives to improve health and housing conditions.
The detailed exposition adds culture and sport as well.
The document comes not from the government of the west midlands—although the Government would like it to be so in due course—but from a regional development agency. How can it cope with all that? To use a seasonal metaphor, this is a Christmas tree of a document on which every bauble of interest to every passing local councillor has been hung in the most shameless way.
A longer speech would enable me to dissect this document in more detail, and I should have liked to do so. However, let me pick out a couple of other solecisms from the report.
It is the blend of cultures, unique histories and shared futures that defines the West Midlands.
What about London, or the east midlands or Yorkshire? What makes that distinctive of the west midlands?
West Midlands economic development partners are working together to build the regions role as a region of Europe".
We know what that agenda means—the Balkanisation of England and the sidelining of this House.
Where is the reference to cross-border co-operation? It is here. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) sitting on the Front Bench. We have many mutual, cross-border interests with Gloucestershire—but, of course Gloucestershire is in the south-west region, along with the Isles of Scilly. There is passing reference to co-operation with other regions, but it relates only to tourism. My hon. Friend and I sometimes fight, but we sometimes agree, and we know that many other more important issues than tourism unite and sometimes divide our two counties, which actually should be in the same region, not in different ones.
I could go on, but I shall conclude with a quote from this totally inadequate and woeful document, which the Deputy Prime Minister should send back to the West Midlands regional development agency saying that he cannot understand it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: He probably wrote it.

Mr. Luff: It certainly reads as if he might have written it.
The document says:
Regeneration activity works best when the focus comes from within the community, with local people dealing with local problems. Local communities will be best at recognising their own individual needs.
That paragraph should be the obituary for the whole wretched concept of regional development agencies.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I wish to refer to a constituency case, which has implications for the whole Kingdom. It concerns the winter fuel grant to pensioners of £100. One of my constituents is a carer who is looking after her mother, who will be 95 next month. She received notification that she would receive £50 because there were two pensioners in the one household. She then discovered that there was no £50 for her mother. When she inquired, she was told that the dateline for allocation was September, during which time the care manager had arranged respite care in a residential home to allow my constituent and her husband to have a break. As the mother—who receives care and attention at home—was in a respite home for three weeks starting in September, when the weather is fairly decent, she was not permitted to have her £50 winter fuel allowance.
It so happens that, on appeal, my constituent will get the money. However, she asked me to raise the matter of the interpretation of the law. When she went to the citizens advice bureau for guidance, she was told that


there had been a mistake. The CAB got in touch with the office at Newcastle, to be told that the law was being administered correctly. I ask the Minister to make sure that no other citizens are deprived of their genuine entitlement because they are in respite care during the application period.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the millennium, and we heard from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that he has had difficulty with The Sunday Telegraph. We realise that those in the media and broadcasting have their own forms of censorship. I wish to put on record our congratulations to Sir Cliff Richard, who—despite the attention of those who, because of jealousy or other philosophical or irreligious reasons, were not prepared to allow him to have the best lyric of all, the Lord's prayer, set to a well-known tune in the tradition of Luther, Wesley and Booth—demonstrated that the devil does not get the best tunes. He has topped the pops and we congratulate him on celebrating the millennium and the year of our Lord, 2000.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The House knows that overwhelmingly the most important issue in my constituency is the proposed closure of the Royal Hospital Haslar. In 1994, the previous Government decided, after careful consideration, that Haslar should be the tri—service hospital. Since then, matters have gone well, so we in the Gosport area were devastated a year and three days ago when we heard, in December 1998, that the present Government intended to change the structure of defence medical services.
There were three elements in that decision. First, the Government intended to place more emphasis on Ministry of Defence hospital units. Secondly, they intended to open a centre of defence medicine in Birmingham; that announcement was made today. Thirdly, they intended to close Haslar.
After several discussions with defence medical services staff, I am convinced that, although the MOD hospital units may have some merit in medical terms, they are a disaster in terms of the retention of the military ethos and morale. As for the centre of defence medicine, I cannot believe that its location in Birmingham will attract people and make them want to study and practise medicine as part of the Army, Navy or Air Force to the same extent that a location in the south would. Haslar is fairly adjacent to a wide range of naval facilities, for example, and the Army facilities at Aldershot, Salisbury plain and Warminster are nearby, as are the Royal Air Force bases at Brize Norton and Lyneham.
I am therefore convinced that Haslar would be a better location for the defence medicine centre, and that Ministry of Defence medical services will lose personnel as a result of placing the centre in Birmingham. I plead with the Government even now to reconsider the matter. Defence medical services are crumbling, and we are losing doctors and nurses at an increasing rate. I have described to the House before the difficulties experienced by orthopaedic surgeons at Haslar. There should be eight such surgeons in the establishment there; the hospital in fact has six, and five have resigned.
From a military point of view, there is everything to be said for retaining Haslar. The development of the Birmingham centre would make matters worse, as it will

take doctors and nurses away from Gosport. Moreover, people who moved to Gosport in the past five years will not be prepared to 'move again to Birmingham.
There are also persuasive civilian arguments for the retention of the hospital at Haslar. The Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority and the Portsmouth hospitals trust realise that the retention of at least part of the Haslar facility is crucial for the provision of civilian medical care in Gosport and the rest of south Hampshire. The authority already has a waiting list of more than 15 months for all operations, and the waiting time at the accident and emergency unit at the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham is a completely unacceptable five hours. Haslar already provides significant resources to assist the hospital trust and health authority to provide medical care for people in south Hampshire.
It is extremely important that the Haslar facilities, on which £35 million has been spent in the past 10 years, should not be closed. About 10 days ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister with the following plea. I asked that he or an appropriate Minister intervene to make the Ministry of Defence and the national health service display a co-operation that has not been greatly evident so far and ensure that medical facilities at Haslar can remain available to the local civilian community in the longer term.
The Ministry of Defence has made available several redundant military sites in my constituency, among them the HMS Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent. What happens is that, years after closure, the MOD remains the owner while the local community waits for a developer to emerge who will acquire the site. When that finally happens, the developer then sells part of the site off to an authority or institution.
That would not be acceptable in the case of Haslar which, as I said, has had £35 million spent predominantly on the centre or cross block which contains the operating theatres. That would ideally suit the national health service as a facility to supplement those in the rest of south Hampshire and specifically to provide out—patient or other care in the Gosport peninsula.
My plea today is for the Government to practise what they are proud to call joined—up government. The Ministry of Defence must not be allowed to walk away from Haslar without providing facilities for civilians in the Gosport area. I plead that this be done urgently so that we can plan ahead for health care in the area.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had an extremely good debate in the past two hours. I congratulate all those who have taken part on responding to pleas from the Chair and, in some cases, cutting down their remarks. That has meant that for the first time since I have been replying to this debate, since July 1997, everyone who has wanted to speak has spoken. That, in the last of these debates to take place in the 1900s, is very appropriate.
I think that there is a real affection throughout the House for this debate. I am delighted that when the Modernisation Committee made its recommendations for Westminster Hall, it specifically excepted this debate and said that it should continue to take place on the Floor of the House. Whatever the future of what I like to call the
"Grand Parliamentary Committee" in Westminster Hall, I hope that this debate will always remain on the Floor of the House.
Hon. Members can use this debate to air grievances and hold the Government to account—the two prime responsibilities of any hon. Member. We have ranged tonight from the individual to the international. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) who, sadly, is no longer in his place, quite rightly decided to use this opportunity to highlight the case of a constituent who he believes is being victimised. I can make no comment on that, but it was an entirely proper use of the hon. Gentleman's time. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) used part of his speech to raise the case of a constituent baffled by regulation, and sought clarification for her. Although the Minister will not necessarily be able to provide that in his reply, I am sure that he will ensure that it is done, so far as it lies within his power.
Then there was the great international issue of Cyprus, raised at the beginning of the debate by one of the most familiar participants in these Adjournment debates, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). He has used this opportunity before, and he rightly used it again. I hope that, in due course, his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and that he will receive a detailed and satisfactory reply. There is no more potentially explosive situation in our continent than that of Cyprus. We would all like to see true peace and justice return to that island.
The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) also used the opportunity, in an admirably brief four-minute speech, to raise that subject and also the position of Turkey, which many of us are glad to see accepted as a proper aspirant for membership of the European Union. Nevertheless, there are problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) went nuclear in a very literal sense. He talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, giving a chilling account of the consequences of the disintegration of a great super—power. Again, he brought to the attention of the House matters which we would all do right to ponder.
Then we had what I would call the classic speech. For seven minutes, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) talked about a local issue. I have some knowledge of the Royal hospital in Wolverhampton because it served many of my constituents for many years. She rightly indicated that the hospital was endowed and supported, as it had been created, by local people. She made a plea that the accountants' formula should not be forced into play to deprive local people of a new amenity on the site of a service that has served them so well for so long.
We heard next the bravura performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who was sadly deprived of an opportunity to speak in the last of these debates. He brought us the glad tidings that the Palace theatre is no longer dark, and urged us all to go to see "A Christmas Carol" there. Indeed, he said that he was missing the gala performance tonight, but I should

think that it is him who is being missed as he would have been the star turn. Instead, he used his not inconsiderable vituperative talents to berate the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) did likewise, although he did not aim his remarks directly at the Government. He used the rapier of wit to puncture the balloon of bureaucracy. I am afraid that I did not read the dreadful document to which he referred. All of us were sent it, but I had a brief look, saw some of the perversions of the English language that so disfigured it and tossed it into the relevant filing cabinet, which was on the floor. I now rather regret having done so, as the document would doubtless have enlivened many an occasion on which I have been bored. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the utter pretentiousness of that sort of verbiage.
One thing that has shone through the debate is the concern on both sides of the House about rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) talked about the police. Anyone who sits for a rural constituency, as I do, knows that the situation described by my hon. Friend is by no means unique. We all see real pressure on the police in rural areas. My hon. Friend's concern was adequately and properly expressed, and he made some positive suggestions that I hope the Home Secretary will take to heart.
My hon. Friend was echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hykeham and Stroud—

Mr. Drew: Stroud?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry. By Jove, what a wonderful constituency that would be. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which is in my native county of Lincolnshire, talked eloquently about the police, but also about the problems faced by two of his constituents, whose anonymity he rightly preserved, and who were deprived of a life—enhancing drug, beta interferon. My right hon. and learned Friend deserves a full answer to his questions.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also talked about the police. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)—now a regular in these debates—talked about the plight of the small slaughterhouse, highlighting the iniquity of the double inspection and the enormous economic burden that it places on vital local services. The hon. Gentleman rightly indicated the real problems caused, not least to animals, by the closure of small slaughterhouses.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about rural sub-post offices. He spoke most eloquently, and I could have thought that he was describing my own rural sub-post office in the village of Enville. It is a centre of community life, and it has been run by the Smith family for three generations. The latest generation took it over just over a year ago. The family provides a valuable social service as well as an excellent post office. All over the country, people such as the Smiths serve rural communities, but their future is in jeopardy. The hon. Gentleman performed a real service to them all by using their situation for his speech.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about what is being done in many villages to celebrate the millennium—God willing, I shall be in Enville on new year's eve—where


there shall be proper celebrations, often accompanied by church services to mark not the end of the 20th century, which will not come for another year, but the passage of the 1900s. I was pleased, too, to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South highlight the significance of the millennium, and he paid a much—deserved tribute to Sir Cliff Richard, who has been vilely castigated in recent days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made a brief personal statement about the way in which he had been maligned by a newspaper that many of us hold in high repute. He was right to do that. Members on both sides of the House nodded in sympathy as he described what must have been a pretty rotten ordeal. He has the sympathy of all Members of the House. He also talked about the planning system. Confidence in that system is essential for a true balance in our rural and urban communities. He correctly pointed out that that confidence was at risk.
The hon. Member for Stroud, who echoed the concerns of other hon. Members about the police and sub-post offices, also talked about education and health. I find fellow feeling with him. Members representing Staffordshire constituencies believe that the county has been badly affected by the application of the funding formula. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the problems of health funding in areas to which people retire. When people retire, they are at the peak of fitness, but they spend their retirement years, which are also their declining years, in areas that are not necessarily funded to cope with that. He was right to highlight that point.
We ended on another health note with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He must deserve an accolade as one of the most conscientiously consistent of campaigning Members in the House. He has fought for his hospital with great courtesy, but complete tenacity. I wish him well and hope that the Government will respond.
I now conclude my remarks because I promised that, as we had a few minutes extra for the winding—up speeches, I would, in true Christmas spirit, share them with the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The debate has been extremely worth while. I wish you, Madam Speaker, all Members in the Chamber and all those who serve us in the House—all members of the staff—a very happy, joyful, tranquil Christmas and a peaceful and, if possible, a prosperous new year.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This has been a wide—ranging, interesting and informative debate. I am delighted that 15 Back—Bench Members have had the opportunity to pursue issues relating to individual constituents and to constituency matters. That is the purpose of such debates. However, we have also heard about wider issues—foreign affairs and the need to examine nuclear plant and nuclear weapon decommissioning in the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia. Several hon. Members have made important speeches—others supported them—on the countryside, health and the police. I have been asked to pass several messages to my ministerial colleagues. I have got the messages—I will ensure that they are passed on and that everyone who has spoken in the debate receives a reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)—a veteran of these occasions—was first off the grid. He was well supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis). They rightly told us of the challenges and opportunities in the long campaign to resolve the problems in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting told us of the slow and difficult discussions that were beginning in New York. The discussions that took place in Helsinki at the weekend, on which the Prime Minister reported to the House today, showed that, after 25 years of struggle, there are possibilities for progress, if there is good will on both sides.
Several hon. Members, led by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), made important speeches on the need for resources for the police. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman in two respects. First, he acknowledged that police forces throughout the country had received extra money. Secondly, he spelt out a range of possibilities, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to increase recruitment and improve retention. The hon. Gentleman spoke about difficulties in his constituency where, as I understood it, police officers were being moved from one part of the area to another.
One of the important initiatives that the Government have taken is to ensure that, each year, district commanders lay down a local policing plan, which is consulted upon. I believe that there will be increasing opportunities for people to have a say in how the police are used in their area. It is also important to get best value from the police. We look at failure in the public services too much and do not reward success enough. There is much to do on that.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke about problems with the Lincolnshire police. I would simply say to him that the Lincolnshire police have a lot to do. They have a new chief constable. I believe that they have put a difficult period behind them. I am with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in wanting to do better for people who live in Lincolnshire.
It seems to me that there is a need to review how we allocate resources to the police force. Several hon. Members spoke about a new study that has been undertaken at the Government's behest. I cannot promise immediate action on it, but I remind colleagues that the Government gave a commitment that they would consider the formula for allocation not just to the police, but across local authorities, in a three—year review. We have just announced the results of the second year review, and there is much to be argued about.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham also spoke about the problems facing sufferers of MS. I know Professor B, whom he spoke about—a leading international expert on the matter—and I know his views and have some sympathy with them. That is why the Government have set up the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness. The issue of MS and beta interferon is one of the first subject areas to be considered. Announcements will be made about that in the spring and summer. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it is wrong that people in different parts of the country have different access to different services. I hope that NICE will enable us to move forward and meet his constituents' real needs, as he outlined in such a moving way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South—West (Ms Jones) also spoke about a health issue in a sense—a derelict health issue. Her arguments about local consultation on planning are extremely important. It must be right to change blighted properties—blighted areas. What she described as a village in the community is the right way forward. That chimes with the Government's thinking through Lord Rogers's task force. I will of course ensure that she receives an early reply to her letter.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has pursued the issue of Haslar hospital with vigour, in a robust campaign. He knows that careful thought has been given to that decision, and that it has been taken reluctantly. He knows of the volume of work and the patient mix at Haslar hospital, and he knows that the facility at Haslar will not close until new arrangements are in place at the Queen Alexandra hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), who could not be with us for these winding—up speeches, spoke strongly for his constituent, Andrea Morgan. I do not want to prejudge the issue, but it seems to me that local authorities and all employers should treat such issues with sense and sensitivity. I felt that that might not have happened in this case. I remind the London borough of Hillingdon that it is subject to employment law and I undertake that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will consider the case closely to see whether we can reach a proper outcome.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke strongly on the important matter of the need for a post office network across the country and, especially, in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to opportunities as well as challenges and I think that the horizon scheme offers opportunities. The move to e—commerce and to new technology will also offer opportunities, but there is a real threat to post offices and we should not deny that. I offer the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome the undertaking that having a network of post offices across the country is a Government priority. We have asked the performance and innovation unit to consider closely how we can secure the future of sub-post offices. There are imaginative ways forward, but we have talked about how pubs and schools in rural areas have closed. Therefore, there is much more to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) also discussed countryside issues. He pressed the case for the road in his constituency and I shall ensure that the Highways Agency and the relevant Minister are made aware of the points that he made. He also spoke strongly in support of small abattoirs and about the need for them on animal welfare grounds. He stressed the need to maintain the industry in rural areas, and the Government have done a fair amount to help small abattoirs. There has been a review of red tape and regulation, we have deferred the Meat Hygiene Service charges on specified risk materials and, importantly, we have fixed charges in abattoirs for next year at this year's prices—that will save the industry £7 million.
Housing in the countryside raises other issues. The Crow report is before Ministers and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke properly and wisely about

the need to consult people and to take communities with us. I shall ensure that his views on the need to visit are considered. I also acknowledge the personal statement that he made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about a range of countryside issues and about the need for extra resources, particularly in his area. I remind him and other Members that the latest local government settlement is the best one since the council tax began. However, there is much more to be done.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about a millennium boom and the problems of nuclear plants and weapons in Russia. He made good points and I was particularly struck by the need for scientists in the former Soviet Union, the United States and western Europe to work together so that they are not isolated.
I inform the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) that I have had my spies at the Palace theatre and I know that "A Christmas Carol" is worth seeing. I also know that the announcement on objective 2 funding that will come soon will be worth waiting for. I cannot promise the House a decision before Christmas, but it will not be long coming.
There was pantomime season from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—a giant killer if ever I saw one. I also endorse the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made about Cliff Richard and his millennium message.
We go into a new millennium and a future that I hope will be better for our families, our children and our communities. I wish you, Madam Speaker, the staff of the House and all my colleagues a merry Christmas. In particular, I tell my friends in the Whips Office that both sides of the House look forward to a peaceful new year. I hope that they, in the spirit of Christmas, will grant us that.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

COMMITTEES

Madam Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I propose that we take motions 8, 9, 10 and 11 together.

Ordered,

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

That Caroline Flint and Mr. Bill Rammell be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Helen Jones and Mr. Stephen Twigg be added to the Committee.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

That Mr. Graham Stringer be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Dr. Stephen Ladyman be added to the Committee.

HEALTH COMMITTEE

That Mr. Ivan Lewis be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Stephen Hesford be added to the Committee.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

That Mr. Martin Salter be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Dr. Nick Palmer be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

PETITION

Exodus Collective

10 pm

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The background to the petition is the anti-social activities of an organisation known as the Exodus collective, which some two years ago squatted illegally at Long

Meadow farm. Since then, it has caused considerable misery to my constituents, by running illegal raves and having no consideration for my constituents, some of whom have not been able to get out of their homes while the raves have been going on and some of whom have been denied access to their homes. Those homes have been made filthy by the activities of those who have gone to the raves, and Exodus has acted in a thoroughly anti-social and unneighbourly fashion.
The organisation tried to buy Long Meadow farm. It gave promises that it never kept and strung out the process to such a degree that, in the end, a Minister wrote to me saying that it was no longer realistic to sell the farm to Exodus, and it would therefore be re—advertised. Nine days later, the Minister reversed that decision.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Mid-Bedfordshire declares that there is great concern over the sale of Long Meadow farm in Chalton, Bedfordshire to the collective Exodus and over the continued harassment which has been suffered by the residents of Mid-Bedfordshire as a result of the activities of the Exodus collective, which has been squatting on Long Meadow farm for two years. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions decided on 25th October 1999 that the collective had failed after 18 months to pay a deposit and exchange contracts on Long Meadow farm and that the collective would be evicted from the land on 3rd November 1999, an eviction which has not been carried out despite the Highways Agency conclusion that the prospect of sale to the collective was no longer realistic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to adhere to the decision to evict the Exodus collective from Long Meadow farm, and to cancel the contract to sell the property and instead to sell the property to those who will act in a responsible and neighbourly manner.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Arthritis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to raise the issue of arthritis. The subject is of keen interest to me, as hon. Members will realise when I say that today is my 30th wedding anniversary, and I am here rather than out with my husband. Some would say that it is a case of familiarity breeding contempt, but I prefer to think that it is one of absence making the heart grow fonder.
As you know, Madam Speaker, Members of Parliament are invited to many events and asked to support many causes. Sometimes one of those events sparks a particular interest, and that is how I became involved with pain management and arthritis. Two years ago, I attended an exhibition put on by the Havering branch of Backcare, which is run by Peter Moore. He has developed an holistic approach to the self-management of back pain. Too often in the past and, unfortunately, still today, people with back pain are told that nothing can be done. They are given painkillers and sent home.
Peter Moore's programme of self-help, "Fighting Back", is based on appropriate exercise, relaxation and techniques for lifting and moving things. The results from those attending the programme show less use of drugs, more confidence and better mobility—in effect, a much improved quality of life. If the Minister wishes to know more about that programme, I should be only too happy to provide more information.
Backcare is a member of the British League Against Rheumatism—BLAR. BLAR is an umbrella organisation for 23 groups including Arthritis Care—which has produced an excellent document, "Arthritis: getting it right"—the Lady Hoare Trust for Physically Disabled Children, the British Society for Rheumatology, Lupus UK and many more.
In this debate, I am using the term "arthritis", although there are of course many different types of arthritis. I hope that the groups concerned and those suffering from arthritis will forgive me for using just the generic term.
I became interested in BLAR's work on musculoskeletal conditions and its self-management course, "Challenging Arthritis", which has similar aims to "Fighting Back". Last week, I hosted an exhibition for BLAR and a reception at the Palace of Westminster, which was very well attended and well received. I heard sufferers from various age groups give moving testimonies of the problems associated with the condition. I thank BLAR for the information and help that it has given me, and especially thank Sophie Edwards, its chief executive.
Musculoskeletal conditions are the biggest cause of physical disability in the United Kingdom. More than 8 million people suffer from arthritis in the UK, and if we include back pain, the figure rises to 11 million. There are some 11,000 sufferers in my constituency and approximately 1,300 of them are under 45 years of age. An estimated 70 Members of Parliament have arthritis. I remember Jo Richardson, who challenged arthritis and battled against pain. She was a role model for many of us. I think also of my assistant Vanessa, who has arthritis of the hip.
Given the statistics, we must all know someone with the condition, yet we constantly underestimate the numbers affected. In a recent survey among Members of Parliament, 90 per cent. of those polled underestimated the total number of people in the UK who have arthritis; 50 per cent. put the number at 3 million or fewer, yet, as I have said, the true figure is 8 million.
The conditions have a massive effect on the individual, the national health service and the country. The cost to the NHS is estimated to be £600 million a year, involving more than 4 million general practitioner consultations each year. That number is set to rise. There were 10,000 knee replacements in 1989. Between 1985 and 1990—the years for which we have the most recent figures—the national rate almost doubled in patients aged between 65 and 84.
The cost to the individual is great. The major symptom of arthritis is pain. Indeed, 37 per cent. of people with arthritis are in pain all the time, and 60 per cent. have their sleep regularly disturbed. There is no cure, although joint replacement helps, and we still do not know the cause of many forms of arthritis.
For people in constant pain, the impact on established relationships can be dramatic. A spontaneous hug can cause excruciating pain, resulting in tension in the relationship. For people in work, arthritis can mean the abrupt end of a successful career: 50 per cent. of all people with rheumatism and arthritis are forced to stop working within five years of diagnosis—some because employers will not adapt the working environment to allow them to continue.
Arthritis does not only affect elderly people. Of the 8 million people whom I mentioned earlier, 1.2 million are under the age of 45 and more than 14,500 are children. For young people, there can be problems at school. The student may look no different from any other, but will need care, may need medication during the day and may have mobility problems. Teachers need to be aware of how to deal with the condition. Adaptation of school buildings is often suggested and, if not done, can result in a student's inability to take part in the full range of school activities.
A young man at the reception spoke of access problems. His choice of exam subjects had been restricted, and he felt that his life chances had been badly affected. Young patients may have time off school because of hospitalisation, and there must be better support for tuition in hospitals. Fellow students need to understand the condition and its impact on those affected.
If we as a Government are keen to promote social inclusion, the effects of arthritis must be considered, from access to buildings and services to access to goods—people with arthritic hands find it difficult, if not impossible, to cope with modern packaging.
Unlike sufferers from other chronic conditions, arthritis patients bear their own prescription charges. A recent study shows that the cost to the individual for drugs and adaptations or special equipment averages £4,000 a year. For many people, that is a considerable burden.
Although arthritis cannot be cured—as I mentioned, joint replacement helps in many cases—there is effective pain relief, and new drugs are being developed. Groups such as BLAR welcome initiatives such as the establishment of NICE—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—and the Commission for Health Improvement, but they are


concerned that those should not become a barrier to access to treatment or a device for rationing. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's assurance on that matter.
There is a need for further training for general practitioners and for consultant expansion, if the Royal College of Physician's target of one rheumatologist per 85,000 population is to be met. Currently in the UK, there are 420 consultants working in rheumatology in 242 rheumatology departments, so there is a long way to go. The best provided region is North Thames, with one rheumatologist per 154,384 population. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into expansion in this specialty.
I mentioned the self-management programmes, "Challenging Arthritis" and "Fighting Back". I hope that my hon. Friend will endorse those initiatives and, if possible, make money available to set up and broaden the availability of self-management courses. Those could form a central part of the expert patients programme. Self-management of pain empowers people to be more independent. It helps to reduce pain and the anxiety and depression that often accompany constant pain.
Those courses are run by volunteers, but arrangements may be made for health and social services professionals to visit the local course—indeed, many already refer patients to them. The courses do not offer medical advice and are not intended as a substitute for medical treatment. They are complementary, but their effect not only benefits the patient, but can have long-term advantages for the health and benefits budget by helping people to return to work and gain independence.
I ask my hon. Friend to encourage health authorities to take up and fund such courses so that they become available to all arthritis sufferers. I urge fellow Members of Parliament to ask their health authorities what services they provide for people with arthritis. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the national service framework on older people will address the needs of older people with arthritis and other conditions, such as Paget's disease, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis? Many older people feel that they do not receive the best treatment because of their age. The National Association for the Relief of Paget's Disease can provide my hon. Friend with many examples of such ageism. It would be good to have a national service framework for arthritis.
I should welcome a special meeting between my hon. Friend and representatives of BLAR to discuss all these issues. Such a meeting would be appropriate, as the decade of bone and joint begins in 2000. That initiative has been endorsed by the United Nations and the Government.
Arthritis Care is running a roadshow next year from March to November, which will be travelling throughout the United Kingdom. The roadshow will provide information, advice and support to people with arthritis. It will also give information to the public. It will have 43 stops on its route and it hopes to reach 100,000 people. I hope that time will be found to visit Romford.
I thank the Minister for his attention during the debate and his consideration of the matters that I have raised. I am asking for more awareness, social inclusion, better access to school, work and health care and for the needs of 8 million people to be taken into account in future health planning.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) on raising this important issue and on her thoughtful and well—informed comments. She has often shown a keen interest in health issues in the past, and the management of arthritis, as she has said, is an important aspect of health care.
Arthritis means inflammation of the joints and it is the principal cause of physical disability in the United Kingdom. The term "arthritis" encompasses more than 100 diseases affecting joints, the surrounding tissues and other connective tissues. These diseases and conditions include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which was a particular concern of my hon. Friend, and fibromyalgia.
Arthritis has a significant impact on health and community services, on those who experience its painful symptoms and resulting disability, and on their family members and carers. Its main symptoms are pain and loss of mobility, but the extent and severity of the condition vary from one individual to another.
Arthritis can, and does, affect people of all ages, as my hon. Friend has made clear, from young children to older people, but prevalence generally increases substantially with age. For example, it is estimated that about 70 per cent. of 70–year—olds suffer from some form of arthritis, mostly osteoarthritis. The leading charity in this area, Arthritis Care, believes that between 8 million and 10 million people in the UK suffer from some form of arthritis. This includes about 1 million adults under the age of 45 and about 15,000 children.
The pain and disability accompanying arthritis can be minimised through early diagnosis and appropriate management. These management tools include physical activity, self-management, physical and occupational therapy and joint replacement surgery. There are several ways in which arthritis can affect individuals. As my hon. Friend has said, the main impact is clearly physical. Arthritis sufferers endure pain, loss of joint motion and fatigue. As a result of these symptoms, people with arthritis are significantly less physically active than the rest of the adult population, even after taking their disability into account. Such a lack of activity puts them at greater risk of other diseases, including premature death, heart disease, diabetes and higher blood pressure.
Arthritis can make people more prone to stress, depression, anger and anxiety, and they may experience difficulty coping with pain and disability. That can lead to a feeling of helplessness, lack of self-control and changes in self-esteem and image. People with arthritis frequently experience decreased community involvement and can have problems finding suitable employment. These were both issues to which my hon. Friend was right to draw attention.
Rheumatoid arthritis is a family of related diseases, not a single entity. The problems are primarily a consequence of persistent inflammation of the joints. While any joint can be affected, it is usually in the small peripheral joints, such as the fingers or wrist, that the condition is first noticed. Rheumatoid arthritis currently affects about 5 per cent. of women and 2 per cent. of men in Britain. Sadly, the causes of RA are still unknown.
Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis includes the use of non-drug treatment such as rest and physiotherapy, but drugs may also be required both to control symptoms and


to slow down the progression of the disease. That is important because the longer the disease persists, the more the joints will become damaged.
The arthritis self-management programme is a promising development in the field of arthritis care and treatment—I know that my hon. Friend is especially interested in that aspect of arthritis management. Arthritis Care has developed a self-management programme for people with arthritis that is based on work undertaken in the United States. That has demonstrated major benefits to people with arthritis in America and has reduced the use of health services.
Encouraged by those developments, the Department of Health provided funds for Arthritis Care from 1996–97 to 1998–99 to help develop and pilot a self-management programme for people with arthritis in England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), when she was a Health Minister, launched the initiative in November 1997.
The arthritis self-management programme is a major project and has several components. It involves the development and provision of self-management courses around the country for people with arthritis. It is a user-led programme, in which all the course leaders are people with arthritis. The programme is delivered by volunteers, is community based and is concerned with empowerment and the development of self-effectiveness. The Department funded the evaluation of this programme, which has demonstrated improved pain management, reduced depression and also resulted in less drug dependency among those participating in the courses.
The Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance also uses the model to ascertain whether people with other conditions find it helpful in managing their illnesses. The Department is providing the LMCA with funding of almost £100,000 over a three-year period to 2001. The aim is to increase knowledge about self-management programmes and the availability of information about living a healthy life with chronic conditions. My hon. Friend expressed anxiety that the Government were not doing enough about such issues. I hope that she is reassured that we take them seriously and that we are trying to respond to them.
In the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the Government announced their intention to set up an expert patients task force, led by the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. Its task is to develop a programme to help people with chronic conditions to maintain their health and improve their quality of life by supporting them to take an "expert" role in managing their conditions.
Arthritis Care's self-management programme was used as an example of good practice in the White Paper. The programme, which is equally applicable to people with other chronic conditions, helps participants to develop a range of skills to deal with their conditions. The pioneering, patient-led project will inform the work of the task force and the approach is likely to form an important component of the final programme. Another vital part of the task force's work will be to link self-management programmes, developed in the voluntary sector, with

mainstream NHS and social care services. My hon. Friend gave an example of such a development programme and I should be happy for her to explain her interest in that scheme in more detail at some other time.
The Government also support medical and clinical research into several conditions, including arthritis. The main agency through which the Government support research is the Medical Research Council. The council is an independent body which receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The most recent figures, for the year 1998–99, show that the council spent nearly £1.3 million on research into osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatism. That included £160,000 on projects involving juvenile arthritis.
The Department of Health's policy research programme funded a study entitled "Primary Care Interventions in Osteoarthritis". It was a four—year study undertaken by the university of Nottingham, and designed to determine whether exercise could lessen the burden of knee pain in the general population. The report of the study's findings is now at the final draft stage.
Several other studies into arthritis are currently under way, including one in Oxford to investigate key design features of the current hip replacement. Another major investigation at Stoke—on—Trent into the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis aims to identify whether the disease should be treated aggressively, with the aim of suppressing the inflammatory response, or symptomatically, with the aim of minimising functional loss and pain. All patients in the study will be over 18 and will have been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis that has had a duration of between five and 20 years. The study is on—going and will cost around £600,000.
My hon. Friend also referred to the availability of drugs to treat arthritis. She will be aware that many different classes of drugs are used to treat patients who suffer from the condition. They include, for example, analgesics to control pain and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The latter decrease the body's inflammatory response to disease or injury, but have little or no effect on the underlying disease and therefore cannot prevent the progression of joint destruction or organ damage. There are also a number of side effects associated with most drugs currently used to treat arthritis.
Cox–2 inhibitors, which are a new class of pharmaceuticals, are being developed. They promise similar benefits to other similar drugs, but with a much lower risk of causing ulcers. There is likely to be uncertainty over the appropriate use of these products, especially in relation to simple over—the—counter alternatives such as paracetamol. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to review the evidence on Cox–2 inhibitors, make recommendations that will forestall any possible variations in uptake and help to ensure that patients are appropriately targeted. It is expected to report in January 2001.
There is, of course, always hope that new technologies will be developed that can alleviate pain and disability for arthritis sufferers. We have, for example, asked NICE to assess the possible benefits of a new treatment in which damaged hip or knee cartilage is taken out, repaired in the laboratory and replaced in the patient's body. We need to know whether the procedure is cost—effective and whether,


over time, it could lead to a reduction in the prevalence of debilitating osteoarthritis. Such a scientific breakthrough could have a major impact in the future. Today, however, patients may be offered interventions ranging from heat treatment to major surgery. Keyhole surgery techniques, through the use of arthroscopes, are commonplace in orthopaedic departments for assessing osteoarthritis of the knee or removing damaged cartilage, and 100,000 such procedures are carried out annually in NHS hospitals. However, for many, mainly older, patients, the total hip or knee replacement offers the most effective treatment for the debilitating and distressing health problems associated with osteoarthritis. Those are the treatments of choice for most older patients and the latest figures show that 35,000 primary hip replacement operations and 25,000 primary knee replacements are carried out annually by the NHS in England.
My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the Government are determined to cut NHS waiting lists and thus reduce waiting times for all patients. Patients needing orthopaedic procedures are already benefiting from the action we have taken: during 1998–99, the number of patients waiting for NHS treatment was reduced by 225,000 and almost 500,000 extra patients were treated in the same time. Since March 1998, the number of people waiting for hip and knee replacements and other orthopaedic procedures has fallen by 12 per cent., and the number of people waiting more than 12 months has fallen by 13 per cent. I hope that she welcomes those figures.
Such operations represent two of the great success stories of the NHS. People move from being confined to a wheelchair or their homes and become mobile and free of pain. They are then able to lead more independent lives, with all the benefits that that brings to them, their carers and the wider community. The national Horizon scanning centre has also identified several other new drugs that treat musculo—skeletal disorders. NICE is currently considering whether they should also be fast—tracked for assessment because they could provide a substantial added benefit to a large group of patients suffering from arthritis.
My hon. Friend expressed her concerns about measures to help disabled people into work, especially those suffering from arthritis. Most disabled people are able to make very effective use of mainstream employment and training programmes. However, for some people who are unemployed, such as people with arthritis, their disability represents an additional hurdle in their search for work. That is why there are specialist programmes to help them find, keep and train for work. The Employment Service plans to spend £189 million this year on specialist programmes to help those with disabilities, including people with arthritis.
My hon. Friend also expressed her concern for children. The Education Act 1996 sets out arrangements for identifying and providing for children with special educational needs in accordance with a statutory code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Parents who think that their child may have special educational needs can ask their local education authority to assess their child's needs. The authority has responsibility for determining whether the child has special educational needs and what provision should be made to meet them.
The schools access initiative gives capital support for projects to make mainstream schools more accessible for pupils with disabilities, including those suffering from arthritis. In 1999–2000, £20 million will be available, which is a fivefold expansion of the £4 million inherited from the previous Government. That forms part of a £100 million programme over the next three years.
I have tried to outline some of the measures that we have taken or set in train to improve the quality of life for arthritis sufferers. There is clearly still a great deal to do. We look forward to working in partnership with Arthritis Care and others who share our ambition, as my hon. Friend does, to see that services for people who suffer from this condition continue to develop and improve in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty—nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.